The author is an Embassy Staff with a European country based in the Global South, and wishes to remain anonymous.
Did you know that less than 10 percent of all the bilateral donor civil society organisations (CSO) funding goes to those in the Global South? The rest; 90 percent, goes by contract to CSOs based in the Northern donor country, or to large International Non-Government Organisations (INGOs). These imbalanced funding flows are only one of the mind-boggling findings of a study by the OECD in 2020. Development Assistance Committee Members and Civil Society | en | OECD
This phenomenon is not new, it’s been common practice by almost all bilateral donors for decades. Historically it was likely a way for bilateral donors to generate support and engagement from its citizens and to raise support and awareness regarding the importance of international development aid and solidarity. This, in turn, was commonly done by demanding that domestic Northern CSOs also contribute with privately raised funding (often set as a percentage of the cost of the projects) as a requirement to be eligible to access grants for international development cooperation from Northern governments. Needless to say; to be able to raise voluntary contributions from the public, information campaigns about international development projects were conducted in the donor countries. Hence, the logic of it wasn´t all bad then, it was a give and take so to speak. The domestic CSOs assisted the government with popular education and engagement around international solidarity and cooperation, in turn, the domestic CSOs were readily given easy access to large and long-term trust-based grants from the governmental agency for international development cooperation. Nevertheless, perhaps unintentionally, this setup has been entrenched ever since. Today, in 2024, CSO support from Northern governments is still largely tied or earmarked to their Northern-based CSOs or INGOs.
Simultaneously, over the last decade, debates around increased development effectiveness, local ownership, results, decolonising development, #ShiftThePower, localisation and lately locally-led development have emerged and taken a firm position on everyone´s agenda within the international development cooperation sector. In December of 2022, at the high-level Summit of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC), a Donor Statement on Supporting Locally Led Development was launched, and signed by 20 Donor countries and 15 foundations. See link here: Donor Statement on Supporting Locally Led Development | Basic Page | U.S. Agency for International Development (usaid.gov)
In brief, the Statement aimed to:
1) Shift and share power by supporting locally-led development and rethinking our role as donors. Understanding and valuing local knowledge, capacity, expertise; and integrating diverse local perspectives (including marginalized and underrepresented groups) into all aspects of the efforts we support. Making decisions in partnership with those who are affected by them. Prioritizing and reinforcing local leadership and ownership, and repositioning ourselves and other international actors as supporters, allies, and catalysts of a more inclusive, locally led, co-created, and sustainable approach to development.
2) Work to channel high-quality funding as directly as possible to local actors.
3) Publicly advocate for locally-led development using our convening authority; our partnerships and networks; enhancing cooperation with national and subnational authorities, community leaders, and civil society; and our voice in international fora and multilateral institutions. This would require intentional and consistent engagement with local actors, including sharing our international platforms with local partners rather than speaking for them.
The actions sought in these statement built on previous donor commitments to advance locally-led development, humanitarian, and peacebuilding efforts, including those outlined in the Paris Declaration (2005), the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (2011), the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2015), the Grand Bargain (2016), the Grand Bargain 2.0 (2021), the OECD-DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance (2021), and the Locally Led Adaptation Principles (2021).
Perhaps that is also why the narrative about Global South civil society as weak, unreliable and in deficit of everything; capacity, knowledge, skills etc has been maintained to this day.
Now, let’s see how these ambitions resonate with the fact that 90 percent of all the CSO funding still goes to Northern or international CSOs? Frankly, it doesn´t. One main cause is clearly due to the common practice by most bilateral donors to tie or earmark CSO funding to their Northern CSOs or INGOs. Another reason is – trust. Bilateral donors trust their Northern CSOs and do not necessarily trust CSOs in the South. This distrust is rooted in structural racism, “developing country superiority,” and the white gaze. A third reason is likely a large resistance within the Northern based CSOs and INGOs to change, as this could imply a loss of funding, power and interpretive precedence for them. Perhaps that is also why the narrative about Global South civil society as weak, unreliable and in deficit of everything; capacity, knowledge, skills etc has been maintained to this day. We have had this since for than 50 years. We have taken part in the system. As bilateral donors we would love to maintain this role because it gives us the power to decide what is good or bad. Changing this narrative could undermine the raison d´etre of the intermediary role of many INGOs which clearly is a scary thought. The present setup is created on mistrust yet all the Southern partner organisations I have worked with are super competent. It has been over 50 years of collaboration – I question why we need INGOs. Everyone except Southern CSOs has an interest in maintaining the idea that Southern CSOs are risky and not trustworthy.
What can be done to address this issue? First, it is essential to raise awareness among civil society actors and organizations in the Global South about this malpractice, as it is likely unknown to many. A significant concern is the lack of interest in helping Southern organizations grasp the implications of tied aid. Research and data are often controlled by Northern organizations, which means they are unlikely to invest in this effort.
Second, bilateral donors who tie funding for civil society organizations (CSOs) to their own domestic CSOs or international NGOs (INGOs) must be called out. We must demand that all bilateral donors reformulate their international development cooperation strategies and policies on civil society support in line with the Donor Statement on Supporting Locally Led Development and the OECD DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society. Third, it is vital to support civil society in the Global South towards being independent development actors.
We must support Southern CSOs to take control of their own development without being sidelined by external influences. Lastly, it’s time to reimagine the role of INGOs and Northern CSOs. These organizations need to redefine their roles to better respond to the challenges faced by civil society in the Global South, allowing for more equitable partnerships and genuine support.
The author is an Embassy Staff with a European country based in the Global South, who wishes to remain anonymous.
If you liked this article on Tied Aid, you might also like;
A call for proposals, but only if you are from the “right part” of the world.
Tied Aid: A development challenge that refuses to go away.
To my feminist siblings, there is a funding crisis in feminist activism.