The unequal funding relationships between North and South

Unequal relationships between North and South
Michael Norton

Funding relationships are often problematic:
• The funders who have the money are based in the North (or are branches or affiliates of Northern organisations, controlled from the North), and they have their own agendas which they wish to pursue.
• The NGOs who are seeking money are based in the South, often desperate for money in countries where there are limited sources available to them. This means that they will want to take whatever money is offered, and on the terms and conditions on which it is offered, whether or not it is for exactly what they want to be doing.
Unequal funding relationships exist everywhere, but are far more pronounced in the South, and especially in Africa from the Sahara to Zimbabwe – partly because there is much less funding around, and partly because there is much less indigenous tradition of NGO activity which pre-dates the rapid rise of international development aid over the past 30 or so years which has developed a consequential need for local partner organisations.
The effect of this is that it pushes Southern NGOs into a dependency relationship with their funding partners. They are always in a position of having to “beg for money” and be subservient. And the tune is definitely being called by “he who pays the piper”. And because the funders control the distribution of money, this gives them a position of power often leading to a certain arrogance.
Just to give some examples of how the relationships work out in practice:
• The North says that AIDS/HIV is the issue, and is pumping huge sums of money into treatment and prevention. Now whilst it certainly is a big problem, is it more important than other health issues such as malaria or clean water provision? And is it right that so much money is going into tackling this one issue as compared with the resources available for dealing with lack of employment opportunities for young people (who if they felt a sense of purpose in their lives might take personal health matters more seriously). The South has little chance to provide a critical response to the skewing of aid budgets, and many don’t want to rock the boat simply because they need the money.
• The North says that gender is so important that a gender perspective needs to be included in all aspects of programme design and implementation. At one training workshop, an Ethiopian NGO stated that the most important next step was to get women on to the Board so that the NGO could be more sensitive to the needs of girls and women. A year later at a follow up workshop, nothing had happened. If it is important, then something needs doing. If it isn’t, then do nothing. Far worse is to waste valuable time simply parroting the mantra of gender at the insistence of Northern partners. And the new mantra is now advocacy, where everything has to have an advocacy perspective.
• The Northern partners say that they want to reach the poorest of the poor; and that they would like to see proper consultation with beneficiaries in programme design. Yet the language of applications is English, so only the elite English speakers can read the guidelines, applications and reports. Would we tolerate a French donor coming into our country and inviting applications in French?
• The North says that all organisations should think strategically and plan strategically. But is this possible, is it even desirable in countries wracked by war and crisis? One South Sudanese NGO based in Nairobi spent a full week for its Board and staff deliberating on a strategic plan, which shifted the focus from aid to development. Yet one week later, when Oxfam rang up asking it to distribute relief supplies in South Sudan, it said “Yes”. Could it have said otherwise? Almost certainly no. But why waste over 100 person days in this sort of strategic planning.
My own experience of dealing with international development agencies in India has largely been negative. Either local leadership has just changed and the new person needs time to get settled. Or the organisation is in the mid of a strategic review, and can’t do anything until the review is completed. Or it is radically shifting its geographic focus, abandoning projects that it has helped nurture which are still not strong enough to sustain themselves independently.
There is too much jargon and too much emphasis on report writing, and too little on creative problem solving and working together to try to make things a success – being honest about problems and difficulties, and seeing these as challenges to overcome rather than issues which might compromise the funding arrangement.
So what to do? I have three suggestions:
1. Change the culture so that partnership means partnership. Facilitate discussions between both sides, so that each’s concerns can be honestly voiced and discussed. Funders can be quite shocked at hearing what their so-called partners really think about them, and knowing this can be a catalyst for re-invigorating the relationship.
2. Create mechanisms in the South for building leadership and social entrepreneurship. Concentrate capacity building on individuals rather than on organisations. And then let them fly!
3. Provide funding much more flexibly to support ideas and initiative, rather than for clearly defined programmes and projects, which is managed by people in the South for supporting projects in their own communities. This will give people a much greater opportunity to do what they feel is important.