They = ?

They = the operational environment, monitoring or reporting ?

Context:

It has also been puzzling to the aid community that U.S. NGOs have not been allowed to open an office in Pyongyang. This lack of a permanent onsite presence has discouraged them from working in the North. Officials there explain that until there is normalization of relations with the United States, it is impossible for an American NGO to establish an office or any kind of binding agreement with the North Korean government on liabilities and indemnities. Government-to-government agreements, such as the food aid protocol negotiated with the U.S. in May 2009, can be honored, but North Korea is unwilling to sign any binding agreement with a non-governmental entity.

In the face of all these constraints I have often been asked why I stayed on. Like others who choose to remain engaged, my presence does not mean that the operational environment, monitoring or reporting have been satisfactory. I am acutely aware that they fall short of best practice standards in the humanitarian industry. My commitment to healing the divisions inflicted on the Korean people at the end of World War II began more than two decades ago when I was on the staff of the World Council of Churches. We knew then that none of this would be easy, but we were committed to staying the course as long as it took. In those days, many things possible now in terms of access to the North and engagement there to improve the quality of life were simply unthinkable. When I see that it has been possible to make some significant progress in alleviating the humanitarian crisis, I can say to myself that the long years of active patience have been worth it.