I recently came across an article from Black Britain, reporting that Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO – profiled here at the Volunteer Logue) is concerned that it will be unable to fill the needs of its volunteer partners in five countries (categorized as its five least popular countries) – Nigeria, Eritrea, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Mongolia. It attributes this partly to what it believes to be an inaccurate portrayal of these countries in the media as dangerous and also to “the rise of consumer driven volunteer tourism.”

First of all, I would agree that the media plays a large role not only in shaping how safe or dangerous people believe a country to be, but also in how worthy people see a country or region as worthy of aid – and also simply how aware they are of it.

As far as volunteer tourism, here is the actual quote from VSO cited in the article:

“The ethos of VSO is that we get the volunteers to where they are needed, but with the rise of consumer driven volunteer tourism, increasingly people are coming to us with a clear idea of where they’d like to go, as if it’s a holiday. We’re concerned this attitude is not good for development. If people are encouraged to pick and choose where they give help, instead of making the choice based on the community’s need for their skills, some countries will inevitably suffer.”

I think this is an important point, and I think it is made succinctly here. People often have the attitude that “anything is better than nothing” but this is a clear example of a case where “anything” (short term volunteer tourist trips, and their general promotion) may be having a negative effect on the whole field.

While I think this is a valid point, I also don’t think that people having a clear idea of where they want to go is necessarily a result of them looking at it as a holiday.

Balance is key, and in fact while I think it’s reasonable for a volunteer to have some flexibility, the idea that those with specific goals are in fact more effective than those who just generally want to help is not unheard of. People who work (paid jobs) are not generally expected to take any job in their field that accepts them anywhere; they limit their search to the areas they want to live in; while volunteer work obviously isn’t paid, and usually includes at least an element of altruism, I don’t think it’s totally unreasonable for individuals willing to do the work to have a preference for where they will live for a year or more.

I think people making more assertive choices about how they spend their time and energy may well be the result of a number of social forces, perhaps including, but not limited to, volunteer tourism. I do also wonder if VSO is benefiting from an increased interest in making a meaningful contribution abroad – perhaps also in part created by the promotion of volunteer tourism. And while I can certainly admit that volunteer tourism may have some negative effects, I don’t feel convinced that it (volunteer tourism itself) is definitely a cause rather than a symptom of many currently held values about aid and social change and the like.

If it’s not already clear, I do have many thoughts on this topic, so be on the lookout for more.