Email this page to a friend!

Good or Bad Aid? Shoes for Haiti

 

“Australian students donate shoes to Haiti” read the headline. I shuddered.

Shoes aren’t cheap in Australia, and it would cost a fortune to ship them all the way to Haiti, where to be honest, they could be bought much cheaper. So why, I wondered, would a group of Australian TAFE (community college) students donate 42,000 pairs of shoes to Haiti?

I was gearing up for a rant about how this was bad aid, following in the footsteps of the million T-shirts fiasco earlier this year. But, as I did research on where the idea came from, I was reminded that whether aid is good or bad is all about how things are done.

I’ll leave it to you to decide if these shoes are good or bad aid, but here’s what I found out…

The man behind the idea is Vulker Elver, a student who stumbled across the idea last year while trekking in the Himalayas. He met people walking across treacherous terrain with no or inadequate shoes at an altitude upwards of 4000 metres, and working for a sport shop back in Australia, he thought he could help by collecting and sending shoes.

He’d found something that he could see would make a difference and was really tangible. But, for aid to be good, we need to get beyond good intentions, and make sure we think through our ideas to get good outcomes. I was worried that he might not have thought through the cost-benefit and logistics of sending shoes, so asked him more about how it works.

Vulker explained that, “Shoes are expensive in Asia. A lot of people don’t have shoes and can’t afford to buy them. To buy as many shoes as we donated would have required at least a million dollars in donations.” Although not entirely true, as shoes cost a lot less in developing countries, that’s still several hundred thousand dollars worth of shoes, which is a phenomenal effort.

Vulker said that he’s been overwhelmed with the response – they’re up to 54,000 pairs now. At such a scale, he explained that it couldn’t have been possible without the support of Soles4Souls, a US charity that specialises in sending shoes to the developing world. They’ve given away over 10 million pairs of new and gently worn shoes to 126 countries, including Haiti, Kenya, Nepal and the United States.

Soles4Souls work on a big scale, so they know what they’re doing. But, I was skeptical on visiting their website, as they had no information on why sending shoes was a good idea, nor what the potential risks were, and they had a few photos that got close to poverty porn. What I really wanted to know was whether they promoted good aid – the sort the promoted long-term sustainability and enabled communities to stand on their own two feet in the future.

I sent them an email asking a few questions, and they got back to me quickly with thorough responses, the complete version of which you can read here.

In terms of keeping shipping costs down, they’re doing an amazing job, and are sensibly teaming up with local partners to deliver shoes as part of a larger aid package. “It typically costs about $1 for every pair that we donate, because of the volume we ship with our partners. We must be clear: it's not our intent to donate shoes by themselves. We send our footwear as part of comprehensive relief packages with 912 current international and US partners.”

I asked why you wouldn’t buy shoes locally, and Soles4Souls responded that:

“We collect shoes in First World Countries because we each have so many pairs of perfectly good shoes we don't wear. Very often they are retired after one or two outings because of a variety of reasons (too large/small, a small scuff, color doesn't look the same as it did in the store, a present from a relative, etc). In the U.S., it's estimated that over 1.5 BILLION pairs of shoes sit idle in closets, attics, cupboards and garages. It's ridiculous and when we issue a call for people to clean out their homes of excess shoes, we always get thousands of perfectly great shoes that someone in need will treasure for many years to come.”

That makes good sense, builds on our desire to avoid waste, and enables shoes to have a second life. Added to that, Soles4Souls source about a third of their shoes as direct donations from corporates, and Vulker secured 9,000 pairs from Adidas and Evans shoes. At that scale, big corporate donations of new shoes seem like a good idea.

One question remained though – how do you make sure you don’t undercut local shoe retailers and increase a community’s dependence on charity and aid?

Soles4Souls “take special care not to harm nascent industries with the donations we make to people living in their area. We support shoe merchants (retail shops and shoe repair shops) wherever we distribute shoes by providing a very affordable micro-enterprise program.”

Here’s where I’m not so convinced. I would have thought the very practice of giving away shoes undercuts these local shoe retailers and deprives them of an income. It would make more sense to sell the shoes to these merchants at a knock-down price, and work with them to increase the number of people in a local community who can buy shoes.

Which brings me back to Vulker and his amazing grassroots efforts to get shoes. He told us that when collecting shoes, it’s a good idea to ask for a donation of $3 to $5 to cover duty and shipping expenses for each pair of shoes. The more shoes you collect, the less these costs will be – which is how Souls4Soles have gotten costs down to around $1. The thing is, at $5 a pair, you might as well just send cash so people can buy shoes locally.

In this case, Vulker and Soles4Soles are to be applauded for having really thought through giving shoes, and are doing at a scale that makes it cost-efficient. Personally, I’m not sold on the principle – I’d prefer to focus on building up local companies, sourcing shoes locally (either locally produced or bought from local vendors), but that’s a matter of personal choice.

What matters for us, though, is understanding what makes giving goods such a tricky business, and how it can be done right. The difference between good and bad aid comes down to thinking things through properly, and making a decision based on the evidence. If you’re thinking of giving goods, ask yourself the following questions:

  • Would it be quicker or easier to buy the goods locally?
  • Would it be more cost effective to buy the goods locally?
  • Who will distribute your donations?
  • How will you make sure that goods are relevant and useful in the local context?
  • How would your donation promote long-term sustainability in the community?
  • What impact would your donation have on local businesses?

Comments

02/11/10 11:00pm - Posted By d'Arcy. - Reply to this comment
Thank you Simon. I have often thought about orgs like souls4souls or Rotary giving old reading glasses, sometimes not going beyond skin deep.

The best and most important point you make is to not have a go at souls4souls but raise the questions we should all be asking ourselves, our charities, our governments - not to be cynical but to be effective.

Don't complain about ineffective aid, research and empower yourself to find more effective forms of aid or the best of the best and then share it!
03/11/10 3:26am - Posted By Emilie - Reply to this comment
Great article, we need to think through our good intentions from every angle.
03/11/10 7:46am - Posted By Mark Chenery - Reply to this comment
I had the exact same reaction when I saw that headline Simon!

The real big issue here, as you point out, is that this sort of aid undercuts local manufacturing and retailing.

One of the biggest issues following an emergency - once immediate relief and recovery work is completed - is re-establishing livelihoods for people affected by the disaster. The majority of large aid agencies recognise this and make a concerted effort to purchase as much produce and good locally as possible. Importing goods is an absolute last resort.

Did Vulker investigate whether there was a lack of supply of shoes in Haiti - or in neighbouring Dominican Republic? I doubt it. Unfortunately, aid like this can actually do a lot more harm than good - despite all the genuinely good intentions in the world.

What's more, this type of donation drive distracts people from the sort of aid that would actually benefit the people of Haiti. Someone in Australia who wants help Haitians may look at the different options and choose to donate shoes rather than money because the shoe option seems more tangible. In the process, the real aid work misses out on a donation that may have actually been put to good use.

I'm glad there are passionate people like Vulker in Australia. It's just a shame their energies are not always directed at the best possible way to help.
03/11/10 9:09pm - Posted By Brendan - Reply to this comment
I would have to agree that the major issue is the undercutting of the local market. Their statement about supporting shoe merchants with micro-enterprise seems completely nonsensical - they provide free shoes and then offer micro-loans to encourage the retailers to continue in the market they've effectively destroyed? Also as pointed out above this doesn't look at the manufacturing side of the business where they're distributing the shoes.

Furthermore, I find it hard to trust Shoes4Souls. As recently reported by Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2268835), the CEO earns $500,000 - more than the CEO of the American Red Cross, despite Shoes4Souls turnover and size being around a single percent of that of the Red Cross. His explanation for the size of his salary seems to be that 'I gave up a job in the private sector from which I would have been earning far more'.
03/11/10 10:33pm - Posted By Lyrian - Reply to this comment
While I absolutely agree that undercutting the local market is a real and serious issue, I also think dealing with initiatives like Shoes4Souls can be useful in maturing a market "before it's time," by forcing it to deal with challenges that are just around the (globalised) corner - i.e. cheaper imports.

The way the world works now, there is always someone who is just about to undercut you - and the race to the bottom is not a space to be competing in over the long term , especially if you're a land-locked country for whom transport (and thus trade) is a serious issue.

Which really brings me to the point - do initiatives like this undercut the market, or mature the market?

*squirms*
04/11/10 8:09am - Posted By Ellen - Reply to this comment
I agree with the problems of undercutting the market. Another example that has caused some controversy is the "free wheelchair mission" that provides free, but foreign-made wheelchairs to developing countries. A colleague is a specialist in wheelchairs, and he says that he has known of places where local people are put out of the business of making wheelchairs because of this. Again, why couldn't they be bought locally? In some cases, perhaps there is nobody making them to begin with. So how about training people and helping them to establish the business? Then free wheelchair mission can buy those wheelchairs locally.

I work in speech-language therapy and was doing some development work in a developing country. Some very well-meaning students from the US wanted to help. No matter how I tried to convince them that sending me assessment and treatment materials from the US was not going to be nearly as helpful as sending me money to buy things locally (paper, markers, laminating sheets, printers, etc.), they went out and got free resources from US companies. The shipping costs are prohibitive and they have never been shipped. But they wouldn't be very useful if they were shipped anyway.

People make assumptions that things aren't available in developing countries, and so they do things like this. With a little investigation or by speaking to someone who has been in-country, well-meaning individuals could find out that what they want to provide to people in a developing country is available locally, and that actually their donations would go much further if they didn't spend the money on shipping, as noted in the article.
04/11/10 10:11am - Posted By Chris Carmichael - Reply to this comment
I work for Soles4Souls and wrote the answers Simon posted here. I wasn't clear enough about how we operate our micro-enterprise program, which is admittedly still in development. We do sell the shoes at a very minimal cost depending on where we are distributing and the health of the local economy. I suppose the best way to show this is through a video we just shot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DuwhYBMsx0

We are collaborating with a few poverty advocacy groups on creating a system that doesn't harm local merchants. We do care very much about this because we understand the harm that can come from misdirected aid. Any ideas would be very welcome. And please don't say "just send cash" -- we are given millions of pairs of new shoes that MUST be delivered out of the US market or they will be sent straight to the landfills. We are aware we operate on a razor thin line so we must act with intention, transparency, and authenticity. Visit us at www.giveshoes.org to send comments or learn more. Cheers.
05/11/10 1:51am - Posted By Simon Moss - Reply to this comment
Thanks for the comment Chris - and to all those reading the blog and comments, it's worth noting how quickly and thoroughly Chris got back with responses to my original questions. I think the clip that Chris linked to shows the efforts they're going to develop a clearer response to my concerns, and my great hope is that it's a journey that we can take the public on too.

As I read through the comments here, I think the takeaway is the importance of understanding local context. Regardless of what goods we're thinking of giving, we need to be aware of the impact - both desired and unintended that our gifts and actions could have.

It's the responsibility of charities and organisations collecting these goods to have thought these issues, as Soles4Souls are right now.
06/11/10 8:33am - Posted By Karen - Reply to this comment
All these arguments make sense, but if you consider that some of these shoes are going to children who are walking barefoot in dumps, scrounging for items they can sell to buy food for their families, "undercutting the local market" doesn't apply. These children do not have the mooney to buy shoes from a local merchant in the first place. And in times of disaster like the earthquake in Haiti, how many thousands of people have lost everything they own - from their homes & belongings to their livlihood that was destroyed at the same time? If Soles4Souls or Vulker Elver can put shoes on the feet of a family, that is one less thing that family has to find money for in their struggle to survive.
And in Port-au-Prince - what local shoe store is still standing?
Yes, long term solutions need to be found to help the local economy, but today, if you can put boots on a worker or a Haitian going off to help clear rubble and rebuild Port-au-Prince, how can that be a bad thing?
03/08/11 11:01pm - Posted By Kayleen - Reply to this comment
Stay inofrmatvie, San Diego, yeah boy!

Add Comment

Your Name:

Your Email (Not Displayed):

Please enter the code in the image into the box

Code:


Can't read the image? Reload