Cockfighting loan

[Guest]

.

[Sengbe Pieh]

The following was posted by Kristin on both the Animal Lovers & the Vegans for Global Harmony teams message boards:

                                                                                                                                                   

This is a letter below from FincaPeru: (notice the very bottom where they said they would not post anymore loans like this)

Dear Kristin,

Thank you very much for your emails. On Friday afternoon, Kiva took off the story that you mentioned. This is what Kiva posted:

Kiva’s field partner, FINCA Peru, has decided to refund this loan. Here are is reason why, in their own words:

The story posted was from a young man, William, whose business is raising roosters for cockfights in Ayacucho. Cockfighting is legal in Peru. We understand and are sensitive to some of the Kiva community’s opinions and criticisms regarding the use of this loan, which is why we have decided to ask Kiva to refund it, even though it has already been fully funded on the website.

We would also like to share a bit more about FINCA Peru. We are the pioneer in the village banking methodology in Peru and have been working in Lima, Ayacucho and Huancavelica since 1993. We work with over 12,300 microentrepreneurs, 93% are women, most of them mothers, and 25% are in rural areas where there are few to none financial services offered. As you may see, William’s story is more of an exception than the average story of our wonderful clients.

Kind regards,
FINCA Peru

We have decided to not post any stories that could be culturally sensitive in certain parts of the world.

If you have additional questions, please let me know.
Viviana


Posted by Kristin
May 10, 2009 - 3:12 pm PDT

[mungo]

That statement kind of turns the tables...
not only are we worried about interfering in 'cultural issues' in the borrowers country...
the MFI appears to be worried about 'the lenders cultural issues'
kind of makes me blink - twice.

I have to admit, this has me thinking. 

I initially indicated that I thought the MFI was using Good Judgment in pulling the loan, and I still believe that.  But I'm less familiar with the MFIs than most, so maybe someone can enlighten me - are they well positioned to determine what loans may be culturally sensitive in certain parts of the world?  And even if they are, is that a good tactic - for the MFI to filter their own loans based on their knowledge and understanding of different cultures?  Versus Kiva filtering out loans based on their knowledge and understanding of their own lenders?   I believe that Kiva is more likely to be in a good position to determine what loans shouldn't be listed.  It's not that I don't appreciate the actions of the MFI in this case, I just think the burden of responsibility should shift to the party best suited to address the problem, and most likely to be negatively impacted by it.  I still think that's Kiva.

But this all does have me thinking.

[tomviolence]

"Self Censorship" - by the Medium (Kiva), the Source (MFI), or Audience (Lenders) -

I really think that if Kiva becomes the filter, we start down that primrose path where some group somewhere will not be happy with whatever the loans being offered are and want them removed. No farm animals, no agriculture with pesticides, no cars or motorcycles unless hybrid powered, no alcohol sales, ice cream is fattening, paper for school children should be at least 80% post consumer recycled, etc. And when Kiva offers no loans, I will complain.

If the source (MFI) discovers certain loans do not do well or cause problems getting other loans funded, they might stop posting those loans. But this does require people to see the offering, give feedback, and the MFI act on it.

Finally, the Audience. There are over 700 loans posting right now. The choice is yours.

I understand some people loan with out an in depth analysis of the offering, and sometimes the "blurb" is not clear. I think it is very very important to realize the rest of the world is not 2009 america, and 2008 america DID have legal cockfighting. Not that this makes blood sports great or wonderful, or to be encouraged, but is it really a litmus test on whether Kiva should be supported or not ? I guess everybody has a make or break point, and perhaps this is it for some - not for me though.

[Diane R]

I agree with you fully, tomviolence.  This is the "slippery slope" concept that has been alluded to several times in related threads.  The appropriate place for loans to be screened and evaluated is at the MFI.


--Diane.

[tomviolence]

it was funny seeing "agree with you tomviolence" used in a sentence.

BTW - my nickname is like calling a 300 lb biker "Tiny" or a bald guy "Curly" .....

[cpbailey]

I agree that the best place is the mfi.  It is a wonderful way to distinguish partners.  I look for how a partner handles issues, and Finca has shown that it cares how it is perceived.  It is showing cultural sensitivity to potential lenders by pulling this loan.  It also will make efforts to consider which loans are posted in the future. 

This was the perfect resolution in my opinion.

Colette

[Ginni]

Kiva already filters loans. You won't find a loan related to prostitution, regardless of it being legal in the originating country. I would like blood sports to be added to that filter.

[Diane R]

And once again it's instructive to point out that prostitution and other loan uses disallowed by Kiva are related to human suffering and oppression.


--Diane.

[Ginni]

On one of the other threads that was discussing the cockfighting issue, someone pointed out that violence against animals often leads to violence against people, especially children and women. I've been skimming these threads so I can't give you details, but I think the person worked in a field dealing with battered women.

[CESOus]

The comment about prostitution prompts me to write again.  When I received the original message about the cockfighting loan, I wrote to contactus@kiva.org as was suggested in the message.  I received a lengthy and thoughtful reply from someone named Joe Ferrer of Kiva Customer Service.  I then wrote back, and perhaps my comments to Joe would be pertinent here.  Diane's note about HUMAN suffering and oppression does clarify the issue somewhat further, however.

   "Thank you, Joe, for your lengthy and considerate explanation.  I don't agree, however.  There are some things that go beyond culture.  
 
The most extreme example I can think of - and I hope you'll forgive me for this, as it is a difficult area and, frankly, is highly unlikely to ever involve Kiva in any way - is female circumcision, which is culturally desirable (even mandated) in parts of the world.  Would any of us condone a procedure resulting in bodily trauma, disfigurement, possible infection, extreme pain and future dysfunction on a screaming, terrified pre-teen girl in the name of culture?  
 
If someone wanted a loan to open a clinic to perform female circumcision in a country where such a thing is legal, would Kiva accept that?  
 
What about a house of prostitution, where it's legal?
 
I grant that these are far-fetched examples, but I'm trying to make a point here.
 
Surely, Kiva, as an organization, has principles beyond just what is acceptable elsewhere."