The suggestion of Daniel Lak (A developing crisis, # 121) that donor funds flowing into Nepal are not accounted for is somewhat besides reality. Since the professionalisation of the aid industry, aid officials (such as myself) spend half of their time entertaining review and evaluation missions and reporting back to donor governments. In that way, donor officials are made to feel more accountable to their own governments than to serious Nepali constituencies. Thus, I rather feel that donors are held accountable too much-but to the wrong constituency. This results in Nepali society having limited influence over donor investments, which may be the reason why the aid industry responds so poorly to the needs of Nepal. So, should donor representatives speak out and express their position in the present situation, as Daniel suggests? We should be modest after overlooking the results of our benign advice over the last decades. I think that we better ask that our investments are accounted for by credible Nepali check-and-balance systems, and having done that, leave (foreign aid) policy making to the Nepali people.

Frank van Schoubroeck,
Kathmandu

. I appreciated the article by Daniel Lak (The road less travelled, #120). It was heartening to read about how he says we should take the high ground. The idea is very sensible and should be heeded. Nepal can rebuild itself, and bring back peace and tranquillity.

Anil,
by email