The withdrawal or scaling down of funding by agencies like USAID, FCDO, the Dutch MFA, and Germany’s BMZ raises critical questions about the future of development finance and the feasibility of locally-led development. Credit: WFP/Desire Joseph Ouedraogo

By Tafadzwa Munyaka
HARARE, Jul 24 2025 (IPS)

In recent years, major international donors such as the European Union (EU), the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), USAID, and other bilaterals (such as BMZ, Sida, the Netherlands among others) have significantly reduced development funding to global majority countries.

These shifts are occurring in the midst of rhetorical commitments to localization and ‘shifting the power’ to local civil society organizations. This article looks at the paradox of decreasing official development assistance (ODA) alongside the growing emphasis on localization.

It explores the rise of remittances as an alternative flow of capital, asking whether this signals a structural transformation in global development finance or reinforces already existing inequalities.

The Grand Bargain committed donors and aid organizations to channel 25% of funding to local actors by 2020, a target that remains unmet five years past the initial deadline. In practice, only 1.2% of total humanitarian funding went directly to local organizations in 2022

Drawing on academic literature, donor trend analyses, and policy discourse, this article argues that while localization remains a compelling imperative, the reduction in traditional aid risks hollowing out the resourcing base necessary to realise it meaningfully.

The international development sector is witnessing a contradictory moment. On one hand, the calls for localization – the transfer of resources, decision-making power, and leadership to local actors – have grown louder, particularly after the Grand Bargain of 2016 and more recently through decolonizing aid discourses.

On the other hand, bilateral and multilateral donors that once underwrote the bulk of development financing are retrenching, citing domestic fiscal constraints, geopolitical realignments, and prioritization of emergency spending.

The withdrawal or scaling down of funding by agencies like USAID (in certain regions), FCDO, the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Germany’s BMZ raises critical questions about the future of development finance and the feasibility of locally-led development.

Here, I look at these shifts through a power-sensitive lens, exploring whether the decrease in ODA and the increase in remittances and private flows mark a reordering of global development relations.

1. The decline in traditional donor funding

Traditional donors, particularly from the OECD (DAC), have been reducing long-term development assistance. FCDO has slashed aid to many African countries since 2020, citing Brexit-related restructuring and domestic budget pressures.

The Netherlands announced in 2023 it would refocus its development cooperation on fewer thematic and geographic areas, withdrawing from several African partnerships. USAID has signalled a shift toward more geopolitical objectives under the Indo-Pacific strategy, with programs in Sub-Saharan Africa quietly closing or transitioning to local ownership with fewer resources.

Data from the OECD (2024) indicates that while ODA rose nominally in 2023 (USD 223.7 billion), the increase was largely due to in-donor refugee costs and Ukraine-related support – not sustainable investments in development programming. Long-term, country-programmed ODA has either stagnated or declined in many contexts.

2. Localization: rhetoric vs. resourcing

The localization agenda broadly defined as empowering local actors to lead humanitarian and development efforts remains a policy priority in theory. The Grand Bargain committed donors and aid organizations to channel 25% of funding to local actors by 2020, a target that remains unmet five years past the initial deadline. In practice, only 1.2% of total humanitarian funding went directly to local organizations in 2022.

This discrepancy between rhetoric and resourcing reveals the structural inertia of the international aid system. Large INGOs and UN agencies continue to dominate funding channels due to perceived capacities, fiduciary standards, and donor risk aversion. The result is what Featherstone (2021) calls “localization without power” – where local actors are asked to lead without the corresponding control over financial or strategic resources.

Yet the rhetoric of localization often conceals the lack of structural commitment to resource redistribution. Donors have increasingly placed the burden of localization on intermediaries or local partners without adjusting funding mechanisms to support this transition.

Many local organizations remain trapped in subcontracting arrangements, where they are implementers of externally designed projects, with little influence over priorities, timelines, or metrics of success. This reflects what some scholars have termed the “isomorphic mimicry” of localization – adopting the language of power shift without ceding actual power.

In the absence of core, flexible and multi-year financing, localization becomes performative. Donors must move beyond tokenistic inclusion of local actors in funding chains and instead dismantle the bureaucratic and compliance-heavy models that prevent equitable access to funding. Without financial restructuring, localization risks becoming a vehicle for austerity – a means of exiting aid rather than transforming it.

3. Remittances: a parallel flow?

Remittances to low- and middle-income countries reached an estimated USD669 billion in 2023, up from USD 647 billion in 2022. In countries like Zimbabwe, Nigeria, and Nepal, remittances exceed the value of total ODA, becoming critical for household consumption, healthcare, and education. While remittances are typically private, unprogrammed funds, their increasing scale raises questions about their developmental potential.

Some scholars (Kapur, 2005; Clemens & McKenzie, 2018) argue that remittances offer a more direct, accountable, and less bureaucratic form of development finance. Others warn that remittances reinforce neoliberal withdrawal of the state, transferring responsibility for public services to the diaspora.

Unlike ODA, remittances do not fund systemic change, advocacy, or civic engagement – areas where donor aid is often essential. Thus, the rise of remittances, while cushioning households, does not replace the strategic role of public development financing in promoting rights-based, transformative change.

4. Implications for local organizations and civic space

The contraction of traditional donor funding, especially in civic space, women’s rights, and environmental justice programming, for example, is creating funding vacuums for local organizations.

Simultaneously, the ante is being upped on questions relating to the value-add of intermediary organizations, most of them INGOs on the efficacy of their role when funding can be directed to local NGOs bypassing them. This creates a burden and pressure on local CSOs who must professionalize rapidly while absorbing risk without the necessary core or multi-year funding.

However, it goes without saying that without predictable funding flows, local partners are unable to invest in staff development, financial systems, or advocacy infrastructure. This creates a paradox – localization is promoted without reconfiguring the upstream political economy of aid.

5. Conclusion: toward a just transition in aid

The current moment demands a rethinking of both funding modalities and power structures. Localization, if it is to be transformative, requires more than shifting delivery – it must entail shifting money, mandate, and decision-making authority. The decline in traditional aid funding risks undercutting this agenda unless alternative financing such as pooled funds, solidarity philanthropy, and diaspora engagement among others are explicitly aligned with local ownership.

Development actors must resist the tendency to frame localization as a cost-saving exit strategy. Instead, a just transition in aid must foreground equity, reparative justice, and co-governance between donors and recipients.

Tafadzwa Munyaka is a nonprofit/social change professional with crosscutting expertise in fundraising, business development, grants and compliance management, program management, and child rights advocacy. He is committed to contributing to the African narrative on philanthropy and giving, driving impactful change across the continent. 

African giving practices are an integral part of the continent’s rich cultural tapestry. They reflect a profound understanding of the importance of community, shared responsibility, and mutual aid. Credit: Shutterstock

By Tafadzwa Munyaka
HARARE, Apr 25 2025 (IPS)

Across Africa, giving is not just an act of charity; it’s a deep-rooted tradition embedded in culture, community, and mutual care. The concept of giving has evolved through generations, often taking on forms that are as diverse as the continent itself.

African giving practices emphasize collective well-being over individual gain, creating a web of support that binds communities together in times of need. One dimension has remained constant in African giving practices and that is the fact that the giving does not come from excess but rather, on the prevailing need.

The Spirit of Ubuntu: community before self

At the heart of many African cultures lies the philosophy of Ubuntu, a term that translates roughly to “I am because we are.” It emphasizes interconnectedness and mutual respect, where the welfare of one is seen as the welfare of all.

Ubuntu is often practiced through giving, both in material and emotional forms. Whether it’s offering food to a neighbour, providing shelter for the homeless, or sharing wisdom with younger generations, Ubuntu encourages individuals to look beyond themselves and work for the common good.

In many African societies, this sense of communal responsibility extends beyond close family ties. Giving to the broader community — the village, the extended family, or even strangers — is seen as a deeply moral duty.

African giving practices emphasize collective well-being over individual gain, creating a web of support that binds communities together in times of need. One dimension has remained constant in African giving practices and that is the fact that the giving does not come from excess but rather, on the prevailing need

The underlying belief is simple yet profound anchored on the idea that when one person prospers, they have a responsibility to share their success with others. This strengthens the social fabric and ensures that no one is left behind, even in times of hardship.

For example, I remember vividly from my childhood how, during times of bereavement, the entire neighbourhood would mobilize around the grieving family. Relatives of the deceased would go from household to household, collecting whatever anyone could offer — be it a few coins, a bag of mealie-meal, cooking oil, or even just a bunch of vegetables.

These small yet meaningful contributions would be pooled together to feed mourners, assist with funeral arrangements, or purchase essentials for the burial.

The act of giving, no matter how modest, was never questioned — it was expected, because in that moment, the burden of loss was shared by all. Another common example is that of supporting children’s education whereby the extended family chips in to ensure the child does not drop out of school – some even sell their prized livestock to cover that gap.

Informal and formal forms of giving

1. Social networks and informal giving

In many African countries, informal giving practices play a significant role. This often occurs through social networks that span family, friends, and neighbours. These networks create a system of reciprocity, where individuals help each other with the understanding that the favour will be returned when needed.

These exchanges can range from lending money to providing emotional support during difficult times. This is in direct contrast to the ever-expanding compliance regime imposed by donors.

One widely practiced form of informal giving is the susu (in West Africa) or stokvel (in Southern Africa), which is a form of communal savings. A group of people agree to contribute a set amount of money regularly, and each member takes turns receiving the lump sum of contributions.

It is common cause that the informal financial institutions have long served as essential vehicles for collective economic empowerment, particularly in contexts where access to formal banking and credit systems is limited or exclusionary.

These informal savings schemes are not only practical for financing projects but also serve as a tool to strengthen bonds of trust and solidarity within communities.

There is no attendant expectation of demonstrating results, impact or accounting for how the money received was utilised. This relieves pressure and gives greater autonomy to the individuals to attend to their most pressing needs in ways they deem fit.

This autonomy is particularly empowering in African contexts where formal giving models — often shaped by donor-driven paradigms — can be rigid and administratively burdensome.

By contrast, as an example, susu and stokvel systems recognize the dignity and agency of individuals, allowing them to respond flexibly and swiftly to their most pressing concerns.

They also demonstrate the collective ethic of support and solidarity that underpins many African cultures — where giving is not a matter of surplus charity, but a deliberate investment in mutual upliftment.

The enduring popularity of such models speaks not only to their practicality but also to their cultural resonance. In many ways, they are emblematic of an African philanthropy that is people-centred, trust-based, and deeply rooted in lived realities.

2. Giving through faith and religion

Religion plays a central role in African societies, and giving is often a key practice in religious communities. Tithing, or the practice of giving a portion of one’s earnings/farm produce to the church or mosque, is common across the continent. However, it’s not just about financial contributions. Giving to others in need, whether through offering time and skills is seen as a way to fulfil religious duties.

In many African communities, faith-based organizations are instrumental in mobilizing resources for community development. These organizations often run programs focused on education, health, and poverty alleviation, with support from both local and international donors.

3. Giving for special occasions

Life events such as births, weddings, funerals, and other significant milestones often prompt collective giving. In some cultures, it’s customary to give in the form of cash or material gifts, while in others, the giving may take on a more symbolic form, such as providing labour or sharing knowledge.

These practices not only help support those undergoing major life events but also reinforce the sense of community and solidarity.

For instance, in Zimbabwe, the practice of contribution is often used to gather support for funerals or weddings, and this tradition reflects the notion that it is important to help one another during times of joy or sorrow.

The role of African philanthropy today

In contemporary Africa, traditional giving practices continue to flourish, albeit in new forms. Many African billionaires and business leaders have embraced philanthropy, using their wealth to address issues such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure development.

Figures like Aliko Dangote, Strive Masiyiwa, and Mo Ibrahim have made significant contributions to various causes, showcasing a modern extension of the African spirit of giving.

However, giving in Africa is not limited to the wealthy. Everyday people continue to donate time, skills, and resources to causes that matter to them. Whether it’s through crowd-funding platforms or local charity events, African communities continue to demonstrate resilience and ingenuity in finding ways to support one another.

Challenges and the Future of African Giving

While the practice of giving remains strong, there are challenges facing African philanthropy. The continent’s vast wealth inequality, economic instability, and the pressure of large-scale development needs can sometimes hinder the full potential of giving practices.

Additionally, there are concerns about the role of international aid, which, though well-meaning, can sometimes undermine local giving traditions by creating dependency rather than empowering local solutions.

That said, the future of African giving seems to be one of empowerment and sustainability. Increasingly, there is a push to support initiatives that build local capacity, empower communities, and create lasting impact. This means focusing on education, health, and business development — areas where giving can help transform lives for generations to come, for example.

A tradition that endures

African giving practices are an integral part of the continent’s rich cultural tapestry. They reflect a profound understanding of the importance of community, shared responsibility, and mutual aid.

Whether through informal social networks, religious tithes, or large-scale philanthropy, giving remains a cornerstone of African life, serving as a reminder that true wealth is found not in the accumulation of possessions but in the well-being of the collective.

As the world continues to evolve, the spirit of African generosity will undoubtedly remain a force for positive change — a testament to the enduring power of human connection and compassion.

Remittances offer something philanthropy cannot: autonomy. Families receiving remittances decide how best to allocate those funds, based on their most pressing needs. Credit: Shutterstock

By Tafadzwa Munyaka
HARARE, Jan 14 2025 (IPS)

Across Africa, economic transformation and development are being fuelled by two significant streams of funding: remittances and philanthropy. Both play vital roles, but as the situations evolve in many African countries, one truth becomes increasingly clear – remittances are emerging as a more sustainable, dignifying force compared to traditional philanthropy.

While philanthropy, often driven by well-meaning donors, tends to create short-term interventions, remittances empower households with the freedom to define their own future.

While philanthropic efforts can provide essential support, a more collaborative approach that prioritizes community engagement and empowerment is crucial in strengthening resilience and enabling communities to chart their own paths toward sustainable development

Remittances are interwoven into the identity of Africans as they support their families and communities, often on the premise and thinking that if one of us makes it, they pull everyone up with them.

With this knowledge, it begs the question, is it not time to reimagine our approach to African development and embrace the profound potential of remittances? A stark distinction of remittances and philanthropy is that the latter is often a result of and comes from excess while the former is derived form a culture and expectation of selflessness.

The Scale of Impact

According to the World Bank, remittances to sub-Saharan Africa exceeded $50 billion in 2023, in a year they were considered to have slowed down, dwarfing the funds allocated by philanthropic organizations and official development aid.

Countries like Egypt, Nigeria, Morrocco, Ghana, and Kenya top the charts, with families using these funds to pay for education, healthcare, and small businesses.

Unlike many charitable initiatives, remittances go directly to the intended recipients – often without the burden of administrative costs or external agendas.

It must be noted that although remittances can be powerful, they often stem from obligation rather than abundance, which can lead to exploitation when the giver is always expected to give, despite the strong bonds that exist.

This dynamic can create a cycle where recipients may feel pressured to rely on these funds, potentially stifling local entrepreneurship and self-sufficiency.

Furthermore, while remittances provide immediate financial relief, they do not always address the underlying socio-economic issues that cause migration in the first place. Ultimately, balancing the benefits of remittances with the need for sustainable development strategies cannot be overstated.

Philanthropic interventions, no matter how generous, often hinge on specific projects determined by donors, who decide which issues take precedence be it education or health.

This top-down approach, while beneficial in the short term, frequently overlooks the unique needs of individual communities, leading to a dependency on cycles of aid rather than embedding empowerment.

When local populations are not engaged in the decision-making process, interventions may miss the mark, failing to resonate with cultural contexts or actual needs.

As a result, communities can become reliant on external resources, which stifles local initiative and innovation, ultimately perpetuating cycles of poverty. Moreover, the focus on immediate results often overshadows the systemic issues that hinder long-term development, creating a dynamic where local leaders feel compelled to align with donor priorities instead of advocating for their community’s true needs.

Therefore, while philanthropic efforts can provide essential support, a more collaborative approach that prioritizes community engagement and empowerment is crucial in strengthening resilience and enabling communities to chart their own paths toward sustainable development.

Empowerment Through Choice

Remittances offer something philanthropy cannot: autonomy. Families receiving remittances decide how best to allocate those funds, based on their most pressing needs.

This flexibility builds and strengthens agency while preserving and promoting dignity, allowing recipients to meet challenges in real time, without waiting for outside interventions.

A woman in rural Zimbabwe, for example, may receive monthly remittances from a relative working in the UK. With these funds, she might choose to send her daughter to school while investing in a poultry business to generate additional income. She is no longer just a passive beneficiary of aid; she is now an active agent in her community’s economy.

This contrasts sharply with philanthropic programs, which may prioritize education or health but overlook opportunities for long-term economic empowerment.

However, we should not overlook that many in the diaspora sacrifice their own financial growth to help their families back home. The impact is real, but the invisible cost to the diaspora is often overlooked.

A Sustainable Alternative

Philanthropy’s Achilles’ heel is often its short-term nature. Donor fatigue, shifting political interests, and economic downturns can abruptly end well-intentioned programs, leaving communities without the support they have come to rely on.

Research highlights how philanthropic underfunding and unrealistic expectations can lead to the failure of nonprofit organizations to sustain their initiatives over the long term, arguably, precisely because of these short-lived commitments.

To contrast this, remittances are a more resilient source of income. Diaspora communities tend to continue supporting their families even in tough times, ensuring a stable flow of funds.

Moreover, remittances are often reinvested locally, creating ripple effects that stimulate small businesses and local markets. This bottom-up economic activity nurtures homegrown solutions to poverty.

In the long term it is expected to contribute to reducing reliance on external aid more so as remittances ensure a stable flow of funds that are often unaffected by political or economic changes in recipient countries.

A 2023 World Bank report highlights that remittances grew by 5% in sub-Saharan Africa, even during global economic slowdowns, underscoring the resilience of these flows.

A New Development Model

To be clear, philanthropy still has an essential role to play, particularly in areas where immediate humanitarian assistance is required, such as in disaster relief or during health crises.

However, as Africa’s economic aspirations grow, there is an urgent need to rethink how development is financed and implemented.

Rather than relying solely on donor-driven models, governments, NGOs, and international institutions should focus on creating enabling environments that leverage remittances.

This means and includes reducing transaction fees, actively supporting diaspora engagement, and building financial infrastructure that allows families to maximize these funds.

If philanthropy is to shake off many of its negative connotations to remain relevant, it must evolve beyond charity. Strategic partnerships with diaspora communities can amplify the impact of both streams of funding, aligning donor goals with grassroots solutions already being tried and tested through remittances.

To sum it up, “philanthropy comes from excess, allowing for strategic, long-term change – building schools, hospitals, and infrastructure that break cycles of poverty.”

Parting shot

Africa’s future lies in empowerment, not dependence. Remittances, with their direct, flexible, and sustainable nature, represent a dignifying form of support available.

As Africans increasingly take charge of their own destinies, it is essential to complement philanthropic efforts with policies that amplify the impact of remittances. The lesson is clear: development is most successful when it flows from the hands of those it is meant to serve.

Localization refers to the process of empowering local actors—NGOs, community-based organizations and local governments—to lead in humanitarian and development responses.

By Tafadzwa Munyaka and Tatenda Razawu
HARARE, Oct 16 2024 (IPS)

Localization has become a buzzword in international development, aiming to shift power and resources closer to the communities directly impacted by crises.

In Zimbabwe, with our long history of external donor reliance, localization offers an opportunity to rethink how development and humanitarian aid are delivered.

This is particularly important, as the country has been reeling from successive droughts, for example, that have contributed to food insecurity, gender inequality and economic instability.

Localization refers to the process of empowering local actors—NGOs, community-based organizations and local governments—to lead in humanitarian and development responses. The idea is to shift control from international actors to local ones, ensuring that aid is more sustainable, context-specific and effective

Frameworks such as the Grand Bargain and Charter for Change have played a crucial role in shaping the narrative of localization globally and offer a guide for how this can be done effectively in Zimbabwe, especially given the fact that a majority of donors operating in the country have signed up to various localization frameworks that includes the Grand Bargain, Charter for Change among others.

What is Localization?

Localization refers to the process of empowering local actors—NGOs, community-based organizations and local governments—to lead in humanitarian and development responses.

The idea is to shift control from international actors to local ones, ensuring that aid is more sustainable, context-specific and effective.

This concept aligns closely with the aspirations of many local actors in Zimbabwe who have long argued that they are best positioned to understand and respond to local challenges due to their proximity to marginalised and crisis susceptible communities.

Rural communities in Zimbabwe, for instance, have unique dynamics rooted in historical, social and environmental contexts. Localization ensures that local knowledge is not sidelined but central to planning and execution.

An understanding of the true meaning of the localization discourse, its ambitions and possible benefits to the sector is critical to counter any misconceptions and counterfeit approaches designed to derail the major objective of localization, which a true shift in power and influence to local actors.

The Grand Bargain

The Grand Bargain, launched in 2016 at the World Humanitarian Summit, is an agreement between some of the world’s largest donors and humanitarian organizations aimed at reforming the humanitarian sector.

One of its key commitments is to provide 25% of international humanitarian funding directly to local and national responders by 2020, yet, “only about 0.2% of the global philanthropy, estimated at a staggering US$4 billion is received by African nonprofits directly.”

In Zimbabwe, this commitment has shown varying levels of success. While funding still predominantly flows through international NGOs, there has been an increase in partnerships that focus on strengthening the capacity of local actors to ensure sustainability of their work and institutions.

Several international organizations working in the country, including Trócaire, now have active localization strategies aimed at ensuring effective capacity-strengthening initiatives, some flexible funding models, equitable partnership processes and other ways of amplifying local partner’s voice and influence.

However, challenges remain. One of the barriers to achieving true localization in Zimbabwe is the regulatory environment. Local NGOs often struggle with bureaucratic hurdles, corruption, fraud and limited access to larger funding streams.

Despite these challenges, there have been significant strides made by some partners in securing direct funding for Zimbabwean organizations, reflecting the spirit of the Grand Bargain. Lessons about these successes need to be documented and shared across the board to provide co and shared learning between INGOs and local and national NGOs in Zimbabwe.

Charter for Change

The Charter for Change (C4C), signed by various international organizations and endorsed by local NGOs, aims to implement specific changes that further promote localization. It emphasizes the importance of capacity building, fair partnerships, and shifting power dynamics to local actors.

One of the critical elements of the Charter for Change is the commitment by international actors to work in equitable partnerships with local organizations, moving beyond the donor-recipient relationship.

This is particularly relevant in Zimbabwe, where local organizations often express frustration over unequal partnerships that leave them with limited decision-making power.

The Charter for Change also pushes for the recognition of local actors’ contributions, ensuring they are not simply sub-contractors of international organizations but leaders.

In Zimbabwe, while several organisations have signed up to the Charter for Change, there is currently no working group on localisation, a platform that could be used to help advance the localization agenda particularly on issues of tracking their progress in fulfilling commitments made under various localization frameworks accountability and progress tracking.

Zimbabwe’s Localization Journey

Key Successes include capacity building where international organizations like Trócaire have prioritized the development of local partners by enhancing skills in project management, financial management and technical areas like climate resilience and sustainable agriculture.

In this way, local actors are being prepared to lead interventions for long-term sustainability, especially in areas of food production and women’s empowerment.

Some initiatives, particularly those focused on rural development, have successfully shifted from international to local leadership.

For example, community-based organizations in regions such as Matabeleland and Manicaland have taken the lead in water resource management and sustainable farming practices.

While the Grand Bargain’s 25% funding target remains unmet, there are promising trends. For instance, the Zimbabwe Resilience Building Fund has increased local access to funds for disaster risk reduction and food security projects, marking a significant win for the localization agenda.

Additionally, agencies like Trocaire have enacted Indirect Cost Recovery Policies, that allows a fixed portion of budgets to be made unrestricted, allowing local actors to be flexible in utilising these funds.

Challenges to Localization:

1. Regulatory environment: Zimbabwe’s complex and restrictive legal framework around civil society organizations can hamper progress toward localization. INGOs, local and NGOs are required to navigate an intricate web of bureaucracy, which often slows down project implementation and reduces access to direct funding.
2. Funding Flows: A significant portion of funding for Zimbabwean programs still goes through international actors, limiting the extent to which local organizations can fully control resources. While international actors may retain fiscal responsibility due to donor preferences, this undermines the Grand Bargain’s goal of direct local funding.
3. Capacity Gaps: Despite efforts to build local capacity, some local actors still struggle with technical capacity, particularly in monitoring and evaluation, reporting and financial management. This can limit their ability to secure direct funding or maintain donor relationships, perpetuating reliance on international intermediaries.
4. Misconceptions on what true localization entails: Various donor agencies have formulated their own varying philosophies of localization, and some have been seen to be in parallel to the original objective of localization which is a true shift of power to local actors.

Way Forward for Localization in Zimbabwe

Localization in Zimbabwe holds great promise, especially for rural development or humanitarian interventions.

While there have been successes under frameworks like the Grand Bargain and the Charter for Change, more needs to be done to truly localize aid and development.

Through empowering local actors, reducing dependency on international intermediaries and addressing the barriers that local organizations face, the humanitarian and development sector in Zimbabwe can become more sustainable, effective and responsive to the needs of its people.

Tatenda Razawu is an accomplished  Organizational Development expert who collaborates with not-for-profit organizations in Zimbabwe and across the region, helping them strengthen their systems for sustainable impact. Driven by a deep passion for localization, he actively leads platforms and initiatives that champion a genuine shift to local actors, ensuring they have capacity and authority to drive lasting change. 

Tafadzwa Munyaka is a nonprofit/social change professional with crosscutting expertise in fundraising, business development, grants and compliance management, program management, and child rights advocacy. He is committed to contributing to the African narrative on philanthropy and giving, driving impactful change across the continent. 

By embracing equitable partnerships, nonprofits can harness the collective strength of diverse stakeholders, ensuring that their work not only survives but thrives in an increasingly complex and interconnected world. Credit: Pexels

By Tafadzwa Munyaka and Angela Umoru-David
Sep 9 2024 (IPS)

In the landscape of African nonprofit organisations and indeed the world over, sustainability remains a cornerstone for enduring impact. However, continued funding is a pivotal aspect of sustainability.

While traditional fundraising methods such as events have their merits including immediate feedback, the evolving dynamics of global philanthropy and local development demand more innovative and resilient strategies.

This is where partnership-building comes in as an archetypal tool, poised not only to secure financial stability but also to foster collaborative growth and systemic change.

Partnerships build collaborations and the benefits are innumerable, inter alia, pooled resources to scaling impact and reach. They enable organisations to leverage each other’s strengths, resources, and networks.

The size of the global philanthropy ecosystem is estimated at 4 trillion USD, 4% of global GDP, yet only 0.2% is received by African nonprofits directly. The funding landscape is structured in a way that African organisations receive small short-timed grants which neither make the desired impact nor allow them to invest in internal systems

According to the MoFund Africa, “The size of the global philanthropy ecosystem is estimated at 4 trillion USD, 4% of global GDP, yet only 0.2% is received by African nonprofits directly. The funding landscape is structured in a way that African organisations receive small short-timed grants which neither make the desired impact nor allow them to invest in internal systems.”

Realising this makes the case for joining forces, noting that accessing funding, technology, and other expertise for African nonprofits would be unattainable or extremely difficult independently.

This collaborative advantage is crucial in addressing multifaceted issues that require a range of skills and approaches. In any case, these multi-stakeholder partnerships are essential for tackling complex issues such as climate change, education reform, the effects of armed conflict and economic development, which require coordinated efforts across various sectors.

Furthermore, partnerships encourage the sharing of best practices and innovative solutions, leading to more effective and efficient approaches to development challenges.

The Power of Partnerships

Many African nonprofits feel and know the power imbalance that exists in their spaces and sectors. However, the benefit of partnership-building lies in its collaborative nature with undertones of a desire to wrestle power back to them. After all, they are embedded in the communities and in most cases, have some of the most innovative development solutions to problems affecting them.

Scholarship abounds on the value of partnerships transcending mere financial transactions, aiming instead to establish symbiotic relationships where both parties benefit.

For African nonprofits just like any other in the world, this means engaging with a diverse array of partners including corporations, peer organisations, governments, international NGOs, and local communities. Each of these entities brings unique resources, expertise, and networks, which can be leveraged to achieve greater impact. In this light, the following are some of the benefits of partnership that we have experienced firsthand.

1. Diversifying revenue streams

We are told ad nauseam that one of the primary advantages of partnership-building is the diversification of revenue streams. Furthermore, it is said that reliance on a single source of funding is fraught with risks, particularly in volatile economic climates.

The answer, in line with this thinking, is that by cultivating a broad spectrum of partners African nonprofits can buffer against financial instability.

However, Kevin L. Brown’s thought provoking pieces are quite succinct with the powerful tagline, “be fundable and be findable!” This means ensuring that your nonprofit’s impact is well communicated consistently through a diverse range of channels. In this way, when opportunities for accessing funds arise, your track record will speak for you. Afterall, everyone wants to partner with a winning team.

2. Enhancing impact

The potential for enhancing impact is perhaps one of the most compelling arguments for partnership building. When diverse organisations come together, the potential to address complex issues increases manifold as each partner leverages on the other’s strengths.

For example, a local organisation in Zimbabwe partnered with an international organisation to build 2 school blocks in Silobela, a rural area in the Midlands province.

The community provided labour while the two organisations procured materials. Another example is seen in Nigeria where a nonprofit was able to partner with a social enterprise to provide water and sanitation facilities in a community, catering for a primary healthcare centre and a school simultaneously. Without this partnership, neither organisation would have been able to undertake the project alone.

3. Potential for systemic change

The saying that there is strength in numbers shines through in the social change sector and advocacy for development. Coalition and movement building are important for mounting pressure on government agencies for policy change, ramping up public support and influencing behaviour within communities.

Inversely, local organisations that choose to work alone in order to perhaps, monopolise funding or take credit for outcomes, end up doing themselves a disservice. The fact is that nonprofits are meant to be in the business of change, not maintain the status quo for funding sake!

Yet, social change is highly unlikely if there is a lone voice calling out on the streets. It is rare for one organisation to have enough reach to inspire action at the various levels that change may be needed. Multiple voices spreading the same message and exerting pressure on the powers that be is more likely to yield the needed or desired results.

4. Building Technical Strength

The ever-widening technological gap between the Global Minority and Global Majority can be bridged through partnerships. Too often, it is assumed that in the conversations around technology, African nations have to look to European countries or the United States for talent and technical capacity-building including skills transfer.

However, there are home-grown solutions that are addressing local issues and there is a plethora of African talent living on the continent that have become conversant with emerging technologies and innovative techniques. A valid example of this in Nigeria is where organisations like HumAngle, CJID, Connected Development and BudgIT with technical capacity in artificial intelligence, VR technology and other innovative tools have either launched fellowships to strengthen the capacity of other changemakers or worked with other local actors to deepen their impact.

Where We are Getting it Wrong

Partnership-building is not new to most development actors on the Continent. However, an observable trend is that some of these partnerships tend to be skewed in favour of the one who seemingly has financial muscle thereby making them tokenistic in outlook and deeds. Power imbalances in the development space are also local.

More often than not, we see the bigger names accessing large grants and deigning to ‘work with smaller organisations’ in a bid to reach the grassroots. In principle, this is good, but when carried out with an air of superiority, such partnerships become futile as the agency of the smaller organisation is hardly respected by the larger one.

There needs to be a shift in perspectives as connections with communities themselves is the prize and organisations should be willing to pursue equitable partnerships that preserve the dignity and agency of smaller entities.

This problematic perspective creates a labyrinth of gatekeepers and bureaucracy, and partnerships with such power imbalances end up being self-serving with perceptions and risks thought to be so great that handholding is required.

On the part of smaller organisations, partnership must come to mean more than funding. It should evolve to include in-kind resources, expertise and even time. Luckily, the funding space has evolved in recent times to also involve capacity-building (although these capacity-building endeavours are sometimes desensitised from the local context of the organisations) and more organisations are taking advantage of that.

This notwithstanding, the mindshift that must occur is one where local nonprofits begin leveraging peer learning. The way projects are designed, executed and even gaps can serve as great learning resources to bolster the technical capacity of local NGOs.

If such lessons are properly documented, partnering organisations can share them with one another, and go a step further to jointly publish such, providing rich insight on how to engage local communities, programmes that need to be boosted for greater impact and pitfalls to avoid.

In addition, joint thought leadership of this kind favourably positions the partners for funding and as implementing partners when opportunities arise. This will also help organisations to build horizontal relationships, and not only vertical ones, serving as a support to one another, and taking into consideration the firsthand understanding they have of one another’s challenges.

Establishing the Right Partnerships

There is no magic bullet to achieving this. As such, we believe an overview covering themes such as putting one’s house in order, willingness to collaborate as opposed to competing, finding strategic matches, and being diverse and inclusive in one’s search among others can yield good outcomes that result in sustainable win-win partnerships.

Conclusion

Ultimately, we need to change the lens through which we see partnership! Partnerships represent the bedrock upon which sustainable development can be built, and offer a pathway to greater impact, systemic change, and sustainability.

By embracing equitable partnerships, nonprofits can harness the collective strength of diverse stakeholders, ensuring that their work not only survives but thrives in an increasingly complex and interconnected world. It is time for a paradigm shift—one where competition gives way to collaboration and shared goals toward a future we all seek.

Angela Umoru-David is a creative social impact advocate whose experience cuts across journalism, program design and corporate/development communications, and aims to capture a plurality of views that positively influence the African narrative.

Tafadzwa Munyaka is a nonprofit/social change professional with crosscutting expertise in fundraising, program management, and child rights advocacy.

Reclaiming the narrative in African philanthropy is not just about changing perceptions; it is about shifting power and fostering a more inclusive and equitable approach to development. Credit: Shutterstock

By Tafadzwa Munyaka
NEW YORK, May 28 2024 (IPS)

In recent years, the African philanthropy landscape has been undergoing a profound transformation. Or has it? Historically, the narrative of aid and development in Africa has been dominated by external donors and International Non-governmental Organisations (NGOs).

The role of African giving has largely been silent. However, a new paradigm is emerging—one where community-based organizations (CBOs) are reclaiming the narrative and driving change from within.

Drawing on years of traditional giving, it is time we dispel the notions of African philanthropy as having been constrained or colonized. This shift is not only reshaping how philanthropy is and has been practiced in many communities on the continent but also redefining the very concept of development.

Of grassroots initiatives, families, and the community

It is time we dispel the notions of African philanthropy as having been constrained or colonized. This shift is not only reshaping how philanthropy is and has been practiced in many communities on the continent but also redefining the very concept of development

At the heart of African philanthropy is grassroots initiatives, families, and the broader community. The people leading this transformation are the same agents that have pioneered giving throughout time, not only in emergencies.

The common feature of these agents is that they are deeply embedded within communities and possess an intimate understanding of the local context, needs, and aspirations. For instance, extended families will chip in to send children to school or ensure a relative has access to healthcare.

For example, in Zimbabwe historically in times of uncertainty, the village head or chief kept grain given to them in trust by the community for rainy days known as isiphala senkosi in IsiNdebele or dura rashe in ChiShona which means the chief’s granary. Unlike external entities, these agents are not merely visitors; they are stakeholders with a vested interest in the well-being and prosperity of their communities as illustrated.

In the case of CBOs, I can point out that they are uniquely positioned to address issues in a way that is culturally sensitive and sustainable. They can mobilise local resources, engage community members, and implement solutions that are tailored to the specific challenges and opportunities of their environments.

This localised approach ensures that interventions are relevant and have a lasting impact. In this way, they tend to do away with elaborate explanations of how the resources are going to be used because everyone is in on it and knows. This is not to say there is no accountability.

Rather, no stringent conditions or agendas are attached to the aid which ends up drawing superficial impact since much of it is bogged down in bureaucracy.

The narrative of aid

The traditional narrative of African philanthropy has often portrayed the continent as a passive recipient of aid. In this instance, aid is viewed in monetary terms or whatever can be quantified, usually in dollar terms.

This perspective not only undermines the agency of African communities but also perpetuates a dependency syndrome.

For the Global North, philanthropy means one has acquired a new status of wealth and suddenly has extra to give which is in contrast to African giving that is embedded in the need to help or contribute towards a solution despite one’s wealth status.

However, CBOs, families, and communities have continuously challenged this narrative by showcasing the resilience, ingenuity, and resourcefulness of African communities through everyday giving. The Covid-19 pandemic provides a clear example of this as “calls for a paradigm shift in the philanthropic sector gained momentum” in the Global North.

By taking the lead in development initiatives, CBOs have long demonstrated that African communities are not helpless but are, in fact, capable of driving their own progress, ceteris paribus.

This shift is crucial in changing the perception of Africa from a continent in need to a continent of opportunity. It highlights the importance of partnership and collaboration, where external support complements rather than dictates local efforts.

It should be noted, these partnerships should not be “entrenched in unequal power relations” denoted by directing every minute detail of who benefits, what should be done, and where, inter alia, defeating the purpose of sustainable philanthropy.

Of storytelling

A critical component of reclaiming the narrative in African philanthropy is storytelling. CBOs are increasingly using storytelling as a tool to highlight their successes, share their challenges, and amplify the voices of the communities they serve.

These stories are powerful because they provide a firsthand account of the impact of community-led initiatives and offer a more nuanced and accurate portrayal of African development.

These stories are told by people at the center of whatever challenges, opportunities, or development they are undergoing not because they have to fulfill and comply with grant agreements but expressing their lived realities and experiences.

Through storytelling, CBOs can humanise their work, making it relatable and compelling to a broader audience. So many children and people have accessed healthcare, education, evaded poverty and gone on to provide the same opportunities to others within their communities or villages and these stories are known.

These stories and realities could only be possible because there were people who gave towards these causes – ensuring the adage it takes a village to raise a child, for example, all true to the dot! It also helps to build a sense of pride and ownership among community members, reinforcing the idea that they are the architects of their own future.

Local private sector giving

An essential yet often overlooked player in the evolving landscape of African philanthropy is the local private sector. Businesses and entrepreneurs across the continent are increasingly recognizing their role in fostering social and economic development.

Through corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, direct investments in community projects, and strategic partnerships with community-based organizations, the African private sector is contributing significantly to philanthropic efforts.

These businesses bring not only financial resources but also expertise, innovation, and a results-oriented approach to development initiatives. By leveraging their networks and influence, local companies are helping to scale impactful projects, support sustainable local enterprises, and create job opportunities, thereby strengthening the economic foundation of communities.

This engagement from the local private sector not only supplements traditional philanthropic efforts but also ensures that development initiatives are deeply rooted in the local economic context, enhancing their sustainability and effectiveness.

Challenges and opportunities

While the shift towards community-driven philanthropy is promising, it is not without challenges. CBOs often operate with limited resources and face structural barriers that can impede their effectiveness.

Additionally, the existing funding models are still largely skewed towards international organisations, making it difficult for CBOs to access the necessary financial support as local funding is negligible.

However, these challenges also present opportunities. There is a growing recognition among donors and development partners of the value of supporting grassroots initiatives. By investing in capacity building and providing flexible funding, donors can help to strengthen the infrastructure of CBOs, enabling them to scale their impact.

Bringing it home

Reclaiming the narrative in African philanthropy is not just about changing perceptions; it is about shifting power and fostering a more inclusive and equitable approach to development. Community-based organisations are at the forefront of this movement, demonstrating that sustainable change is best achieved when it is driven from within.

As we look to the future, it is essential to continue supporting and empowering CBOs, recognising their vital role in shaping the destiny of their communities. By doing so, we can build a new narrative of African philanthropy—one that celebrates the strength, resilience, and potential of African communities as it should be.

Tafadzwa Munyaka is a nonprofit/social change professional with crosscutting expertise in fundraising, program management, and child rights advocacy.

Do non-profits genuinely embody the causes they champion, or do they become pawns in a larger game of influence? Credit: Shutterstock.

By Debra Nhokwara and Tafadzwa Munyaka
NEW YORK, Feb 16 2024 (IPS)

In the realm of public discourse, non-profit organizations often serve as the torchbearers of societal change, championing causes ranging from environmental conservation to social justice. Yet, beneath the altruistic facade lies a complex interplay of interests, where non-profit funding emerges as a potent tool for shaping the narrative and driving the agenda.

As we delve into the depths of this seemingly benevolent sector, it becomes evident that the allocation of funds to non-profits is far from arbitrary.

Rather, it serves as a strategic maneuver by various entities, each seeking to advance its unique vision and influence public opinion. Our contention, as many have opined, is to explore how non-profits, fueled by financial support, navigate the delicate balance between advocacy and the potential distortion of public discourse.

At the heart of the matter is the question of intentionality. Do non-profits genuinely embody the causes they champion, or do they become pawns in a larger game of influence?

By examining case studies and patterns in funding distribution, we can uncover the motivations behind the financial support that drives these organizations. This exploration will underscore the significance of transparency and accountability in ensuring that non-profits remain true to their mission and avoid unwittingly becoming instruments of agenda-driven manipulation.

As nations strive for progress and prosperity, the international donor community’s approach to providing aid and development assistance reveals a disconcerting inconsistency–one that sets different rules and conditionalities based on the regions involved

How does the selective support of certain causes over others shape the national discourse? What implications does this have for marginalized voices and underrepresented issues? By analyzing the ripple effects of non-profit funding on the agenda-setting process, we can better understand the mechanisms at play and work towards a more equitable and inclusive public dialogue.

In confronting these challenging questions, this article invites readers to reconsider their perceptions of non-profits as mere conduits for positive change.

Instead, we encourage a nuanced examination of the funding mechanisms that underpin these organizations, emphasizing the need for a vigilant and discerning public to safeguard the integrity of the causes they hold dear. As we navigate the landscape of non-profit activism, let us peel back the layers and unveil the intricate dance between funding and agenda setting that shapes the narratives of our time.

How are funders influencing non-profits programming?

In the labyrinth of non-profit landscapes, financial sustenance is the lifeblood that allows organizations to translate their ideals into tangible action. However, the allocation of funds is not a mere administrative task; it is a deliberate and calculated strategy that often aligns with the interests of donors, thereby shaping the trajectory of public discourse.

To the potential recipients of the funding, they have to strategically position themselves, selling their projects or programs as best fits for the stated funding criteria, oftentimes, way off the mark of their missions or values. Consider, for instance, the funding patterns in environmental advocacy.

Nonprofits dedicated to climate change may find themselves in a delicate dance, balancing the imperative to address the impending ecological crisis with the preferences of their financial backers.

Corporations with vested interests in certain environmental policies may selectively fund organizations that align with their profit-driven agendas, inadvertently steering the narrative away from holistic, sustainable solutions. This dynamic underscores the critical need for transparency within the nonprofit sector, as the sources of funding can significantly influence the prioritization of issues on the public agenda.

Moreover, the intentional or unintentional distortion of advocacy goals becomes apparent when examining the delicate relationship between nonprofits and government funding.

Organizations reliant on governmental grants may find themselves navigating a minefield of compliance, where the agenda-setting power of funding extends to the very policies that shape their advocacy landscape.

In such instances, the risk of inadvertent co-option is palpable, as the alignment of non-profit objectives with government priorities may compromise the independence necessary for effective societal change. Such scenarios lead to a mismatch between the advocacy issues and development aspirations of the community on one hand with the nonprofits funding desires on the other.

To truly comprehend the implications of non-profit funding as an agenda-setting tool, we must also turn our gaze inward, examining the choices made by individual donors.

Philanthropists, driven by personal convictions and values, may channel their resources toward causes that resonate with their worldview. While this may foster diversity in advocacy, it also introduces an inherent bias that echoes through the public discourse, emphasizing certain issues at the expense of others.

Popular views without financial backing are discarded for the fashionable ones dangled by those who wield the purse or strings to the funding so coveted by nonprofits.

As we grapple with these intricacies, the urgency of fostering a culture of accountability within the non-profit sector becomes paramount. Organizations must not only be transparent about their funding sources but also actively scrutinize the ethical implications of their financial relationships.

By doing so, they can ensure that their advocacy remains genuine and aligned with the true needs of the communities they serve. Furthermore, in light of many documented scandals involving donor international organizations in Africa, we need to ask ourselves tough questions, like, whose interests are being advanced and how we arrived at agreeing to champion them.

What does History tell us?

The history of non-profit organizations in Africa is intricately woven into the fabric of the continent’s socio-political landscape. As Africa navigated its post-colonial era, a burgeoning need for social change and development gave rise to a diverse array of non-profit entities.

These organizations, fueled by a commitment to addressing pressing issues, have played a pivotal role in shaping the continent’s destiny, identity, and standpoint(s) regarding access to funding mechanisms.

The dynamic relationship between African non-profits and international organizations in agenda setting to address, inter alia, poverty, healthcare, education, and governance issues in Africa has been complex, multifaceted and largely one-sided.

This begs the question that has been asked by several others before us without satisfactory answers, “what are NGOs really doing in Africa?” Historically, the power dynamics have often leaned towards international organizations, even though the roles and influence of African non-profits have evolved over time.

It is common cause that in the aftermath of colonial rule, African nations grappled with the challenge of nation-building and establishing robust governance structures.

Nonprofits emerged as instrumental agents of change, serving as conduits for both local and international support. As the New African puts it, this international support appears as “a prominent part of the ‘development machine’, a vast institutional and disciplinary nexus of official agencies, practitioners, consultants, scholars, and other miscellaneous experts producing and consuming knowledge about the ‘developing world’”.

During this period, grassroots movements and community-based organizations proliferated, fueled by the desire to address the unique challenges faced by diverse African societies marked by an exponential increase in the presence of Western NGOs as well in Africa. Challenges faced by these burgeoning non-profits relating to funding and agenda setting are essentially still the same, just different days but same problems.

The latter half of the 20th century to present times, has seen a surge in international solidarity and aid efforts directed towards Africa. Non-profit organizations are conduits for this support, channeling resources to address pressing issues.

The relationships formed during this era have presented a continuity of the dependency syndrome and a stark realization that the Global North lacks the moral and political will to constructively assist Africa address her myriad of problems.

Maybe, we need to revisit the development discourse to unravel how agenda setting has been an instrument used to determine how African non-profits access funding. Understanding this discourse and historical journey is crucial for unveiling the power play inherent in non-profit or development funding as a strategic tool for agenda setting on the continent.

A tale of varied rules and conditionalities

The realm of international development, ostensibly guided by principles of equality and global cooperation, often belies a stark reality of double standards. As nations strive for progress and prosperity, the international donor community’s approach to providing aid and development assistance reveals a disconcerting inconsistency–one that sets different rules and conditionalities based on the regions involved.

When it comes to human rights and governance, the double standards within international development become even more glaring. Conditions related to democratic governance, human rights, and rule of law are inconsistently applied, often reflecting the geopolitical interests of the donor countries.

Some non-profits in specific nations receive aid with a blind eye turned to issues of governance and human rights abuses, while others face stringent scrutiny, fostering a sense of injustice and reinforcing the perception that the principles guiding international development are, in fact, malleable.

We have seen this happen with staff of organizations that have violated the very people they should be serving without a reciprocal free in funding or access to it. Yet, if tables were turned and a local non-profit organization is found wanting, “how these issues are handled varies wildly”.

Addressing these double standards within international development requires a collective reevaluation of the principles guiding aid and assistance.

It calls for a commitment to equity, transparency, and consistency in applying conditions. Only through a more just and impartial approach can the international community hope to foster genuine global development that transcends geopolitical considerations and prioritizes the well-being of all nations, regardless of their geographical location or economic standing.

The way forward

Who gets to determine what issue is worth funding? The one with the money will want to exert control over how their funds are utilized. The community facing a particular issue would want to prioritize solving that problem, albeit without resources to do so.

We believe this is one of the conundrums local non-profits are faced with on a daily basis. The result is always the same, dance to the tune of one who pays the piper! However, ideally, we envisage a move towards participatory grantmaking or better still, access to unrestricted funding.

Due diligence still has to be done to ensure recipients are fiscally responsible. The removal of restrictive conditionalities might give local non-profits and the communities they serve the willpower to address their most pressing and urgent needs as defined by lived experiences. Again, it is a discourse that we are ready to engage in and learn from others too as we advocate for improved funding mechanisms.

As engaged citizens, advocates, and stakeholders in the pursuit of positive change, it is imperative that we actively participate in reshaping the landscape of non-profit activism. We encourage readers to scrutinize the sources of funding supporting the causes they hold dear and demand transparency from the non-profit sector.

By engaging in conversations about the influence of funders on non-profit programming and agenda setting, we can collectively foster a culture of accountability within the sector. As we advocate for a shift towards participatory grantmaking and unrestricted funding, we should empower local non-profits to address their communities’ most pressing needs authentically.

This calls for a reevaluation of the current funding structures and a commitment to equity, transparency, and consistency in applying conditions, particularly within the realm of international development.

By doing so, we can work towards a more just and impartial approach that prioritizes the well-being of all nations, irrespective of their geographical location or economic standing. By championing transparency, accountability, and equitable funding practices, we can contribute to a more authentic and impactful non-profit sector that truly serves the needs of the communities it aims to uplift.

The nexus between non-profit funding and agenda setting is a multifaceted phenomenon that demands our attention. To preserve the integrity of the causes championed by these organizations, we must remain vigilant, questioning the motivations behind funding decisions and advocating for transparency.

Only by unraveling the complexities of non-profit financing can we pave the way for a more equitable, inclusive, and authentic public discourse—one that transcends the strategic play of funding and genuinely addresses the pressing issues of our time.

Debra Nhokwara is a multi-disciplinary content creator who works in the social impact industry.

Tafadzwa Munyaka is a nonprofit/social change professional with crosscutting expertise in fundraising, program management, and child rights advocacy.

The longstanding methods of fundraising by African NGOs are shaped by unique challenges, often rooted in economic, political, and cultural factors as well as vestiges of colonialism.

By Tafadzwa Munyaka and Angela Umoru-David
NEW YORK / WASHINGTON DC, Dec 19 2023 (IPS)

Across Africa, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) bearing different monikers such as community-based organisations (CBOs), civil society organisations (CSOs) and nonprofits have long borne the duty of designing and implementing developmental interventions to address varying challenges.

The World Association of Non-governmental Organizations (WANGO) lists 4912 of such entities operating in the Continent, which is safe to say is only a fraction of the true number since many may not be registered on that platform. These non-state actors often rely on the goodwill of volunteers, individual donors, local grant-making bodies, international philanthropy and humanitarian aid to fund and facilitate their operations.

In the pursuit of sustainable development, we propose a shift that makes us look inwards at diaspora investments, local organising, and planned giving (including endowments) to provide African NGOs with the tools to navigate the historical challenges while securing long-term financial stability

As lofty as their mission or magnanimous as their benefactors might be, the sheer number begs the question of how sustainable their funding methods truly are.

As practitioners in the African development space, we have observed over the years that the longstanding methods of fundraising by African NGOs are shaped by unique challenges, often rooted in economic, political, and cultural factors as well as vestiges of colonialism. These factors breed an over-reliance on funding from outside the continent, mainly from Western donor countries and international development organisations.

Overview of the Current Funding Landscape

Philanthropy and humanitarian aid from the Global North constitute a large chunk of the funding that African NGOs depend on each year. More often than not, such funding comes with ‘strings attached’ like specifying the issues that the local organisations should focus on, the proportion of the funding that should go to areas of concern and rigorous reporting demands.

It is quite common for funding to be unceremoniously withdrawn when an organisation is termed non-compliant to donor requirements.

“The global flow of aid resources hinders the effectiveness and sustainability of local NGOs, as well as their ability to scale and build capacity”, writes Carlos Mureithi, Kenyan journalist. In addition, funding is usually routed through larger international non-profits while local ones only serve as ‘implementing partners’.

With such intermediaries in the picture, local NGOs are forced to work within the confines of their funding partner’s stipulations. While there have been recent calls for localisation and shifting agency to Africa-based organisations, the reverberations are yet to be felt across the NGO landscape in Africa.

Similarly, smaller nonprofit organisations are completely cut off from international funding because they lack the social credibility and popularity. This creates a cycle where only the most ‘visible’ local non-profits continually receive funding. The ‘invisible’ nonprofits are inadvertently dependent on local grant-making bodies (which are often implementing partners of international funders), individual donors in the communities they serve, self-funding and crowdfunding platforms.

A classic scenario is a case in the South-Eastern part of Zimbabwe. A particular district had been grappling with pervasive issues of child marriages, an alarming rate of teen pregnancies, and school dropouts. In 2019, this plight of vulnerable youths caught the attention of a UN agency who reached out to offer a helping hand.

However, there were differences of opinion on what the agency was willing to support and what the District termed to be the true need. Historically, the District had been marked by severe economic challenges stemming from periods of political instability and other socio-economic issues.

These challenges had created poverty and youth restiveness that left communities to grapple with the effects presenting themselves as students dropping out, child marriages and teen pregnancies exacerbated by inadequacies in healthcare and poor education systems. To the District leadership, tackling these effects was most urgent but the international donor agency wanted to fund birth registrations instead, which according to District records, were already at a 95% coverage and success rate.

While birth registration is crucial, the highlighted issues called for a more comprehensive and holistic approach. Therefore, local needs, while pressing, may be overshadowed by the specific preferences and guidelines set by external funders.

Of a truth, the historical dependence on external funding has been both a blessing and a curse. While it provides necessary resources, it sometimes restricts the flexibility of communities to address their challenges autonomously and radically.

Why the Existing Fundraising Model is not Sustainable

1 – Agenda-setting: The landscape of international funding for community development is often a double-edged sword. While financial support from international donors can be a lifeline for communities facing various drawbacks, the attached conditions for such funding sometimes lead to clashes of values.

This poses a significant problem to the existing model of fundraising, as communities may find themselves at a crossroads between meeting immediate needs through the funding provided and adhering to their core values and principles. The model also perpetuates an imbalance of power between international donors and local communities.

The power dynamics can hinder genuine, bi-lateral collaboration and may result in decisions that prioritise the donor’s interests over the community’s needs. The Big Brother syndrome is real. Furthermore, like in the story above, international donors may have specific agendas driven by global concerns, political leanings or their organisational mandates. These may not always align with the grassroots objectives of communities. For example, a donor might prioritise teaching people their rights, while the community seeks expansion of its immunisation program.

2 – Poverty: The fundraising status quo does little to transform systems, creates an over-dependence on foreign aid and perpetuates a cycle of poverty. On the flipside, small NGOs who are not on the radar of foreign donors rely on individual giving or are self-funded and this means that the resources only trickle in.

This limits the impact of projects and forces the staff to live on the barest minimum. In Nigeria, an ongoing jab at development workers is that the NGO staff’s standard of living is so below par that they should also be beneficiaries of their own projects (especially in livelihood and economic empowerment projects).

This is due to the high poverty and unemployment rates in most African cities. Even though the Continent has a long and rich history of local organising, most community members simply cannot afford to spare the little they have for altruistic purposes.

In the same vein, the high poverty levels breeds discontent towards the government and does not inspire many Africans to support the initiatives of local NGOs. It is a widespread notion that the citizens are already doing too much by spearheading the provision of basic amenities like electricity, pipe-borne water and roads. Therefore, the questions are, “Why should we keep doing so much? Why are NGOs forced to do the work that the government should be doing?” This high poverty rate and disillusionment often stops people from donating to NGOs around them.

How Can We Improve Fundraising in Africa?

Nonprofit fundraising in Africa has been marred by economic disparities, external dependencies, and changing political landscapes. In the pursuit of sustainable development, we propose a shift that makes us look inwards at diaspora investments, local organising, and planned giving (including endowments) to provide African NGOs with the tools to navigate the historical challenges while securing long-term financial stability.

1 – Planned giving: Also known as legacy or deferred giving, it is a unique and strategic approach to fundraising that focuses on securing long-term financial support for NGOs. It comprises several key components including bequests, charitable gift annuities, life insurance, or retirement plans.

Unlike traditional donations, planned giving involves arrangements made during a donor’s lifetime that will take effect at a future date. This form of philanthropy allows individuals to leave a lasting legacy, ensuring that their contributions continue to support a cause dear to their hearts even beyond their lifetime.

The well-heeled in our African communities can be encouraged to seriously consider planned giving as not only a strategic avenue for them as donors to create a lasting impact on the causes they care about but to leave a meaningful legacy that reflects their values and commitment to positive change.

We recognize that planned giving decisions are highly personal and influenced by individual circumstances. Nonetheless, in the dynamic landscape of African fundraising, securing sustainable funding is a perpetual challenge.

Planned giving, with its focus on long-term philanthropy, presents an impactful solution for these nonprofits if they began creating educative campaigns to draw attention to this form of philanthropy. We believe that this piece also creates an opportunity for the well-to-do to explore this possibility.

In the same vein, another beacon of financial stability and long-term sustainability for NGOs in Africa are endowments. An endowment in the context of nonprofit fundraising refers to a dedicated fund established by an organisation, typically through donations or other financial contributions, with the intention of maintaining and growing the principal amount over time.

In the context of the African Union Agenda 2063: The Africa We Want and achieving the mantra ‘African solutions to African problems’, endowments offer a strategic avenue for securing a reliable source of income, fostering autonomy and resilience. Endowments, just like planned giving initiatives, offer opportunities for sustained funding, allowing organisations to plan for the future and achieve lasting impact.

The continent boasts of a large array of individuals who have the capacity to provide endowments to causes that align with their interests. In an age of social status and obscene wealth being flaunted on social media, we ask, “How might this wealth be harnessed for long-term benefits in addressing community challenges?”

The continent also boasts of a large diaspora community that can be invited to partner with local organisations through endowments in service of pressing social and community needs.

2 – Diaspora investment: The United Nations reports that in 2022 diaspora remittances reached $100 billion, surpassing funds received through Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and Official Development Assistance (ODA).

This whopping sum is largely due to high poverty levels in the continent that compels family members who live abroad to send money back home but it shows two things– the resources collectively owned by Africans in the diaspora can make a huge difference and a strong culture of giving back already exists, so it could be structured and leveraged for a greater good.

We acknowledge that diaspora remittances are private (sent directly by immigrants to their families in Africa for personal/family use) but it still presents an exciting possibility of sustainable fundraising for local NGOs.

A Nigerian non-profit, Jela’s Development Initiatives employs this tactic through personal connections to Nigerians living abroad, and requests for recurring donations of $20 or £20, depending on the donor’s country of residence.

In Zimbabwe, Sisonke ZW Family Trust has some of their board members who live in the diaspora contributing varying amounts monthly with a minimum of $100 to support the organisation’s activities. While these have not yet yielded large scale results, with targeted campaigns and narrative change on giving, diaspora investment presents a unique way of channelling resources directly to the organisations that need them the most.

3 – Local organising: By nature, Africans are largely communal and this has resulted in many community members banding together to address societal injustice and developing local solutions.

This trait is one that can be organised and explored to fundraise for local non-profits. For example, in North-Central Nigeria, Vaccine Network for Disease Control mobilises female small business owners to ‘adopt’ a primary healthcare centre, where she makes a donation towards the facility, takes on responsibility to support the monitoring of that facility and holds it accountable in its service delivery.

The donations are not cumbersome to the women and it creates a local networked system of accountability and ownership. A similar initiative exists in Zimbabwe where the Citizen Initiative saw the construction of classroom blocks and ablution facilities in rural areas with citizens financing the projects.

These examples show that local organising works, even if it is on a small scale. However, if more grassroot NGOs adopted this methodology, involving community members in the identification of problems and design of local solutions, they would be more than willing to co-execute and monitor the success of such initiatives towards desired outcomes.

Too often, local NGOs are more concerned with catching the attention of the international funders that they neglect the advantage Africans have as a communal society and the power within that to secure lasting change.

Conclusion

Addressing the existing fundraising system in Africa and its linked challenges requires a multifaceted approach. By empowering local organisations, promoting cultural sensitivity, and advocating for supportive policies, we can pave the way for sustainable development that originates from within communities themselves.

While international funding undoubtedly plays a crucial role in community development and we are not advocating for throwing the baby with the bath water, we maintain that addressing the clash of values and power imbalance is paramount for the success and sustainability of projects.

We also recognize the effort of pan-African philanthropic organisations like the African Visionary Fund to democratise the funding space and abide by game-changing principles like multi-year funding and institutional capacity development but one organisation is definitely not enough to serve the needs of the Continent.

Such visionary approaches need to be duplicated by other indigenous philanthropic organisations. Thus, it is through collaborative efforts that we can build a more resilient and self-reliant future for Africa’s community-based initiatives. Ultimately, it is time to look inward and restructure how we give. The time is now.

Angela Umoru-David is a creative social impact advocate whose experience cuts across journalism, program design and corporate/development communications, and aims to capture a plurality of views that positively influence the African narrative.

Tafadzwa Munyaka is a nonprofit/social change professional with crosscutting expertise in fundraising, program management, and child rights advocacy.