NGOs in Namibia – Continuing Crisis or New Beginning?

MANY NGOs in Namibia have experienced serious cutbacks in funding over the last few years.

The widely heard explanation for the declining aid is that donors are generally withdrawing funding from Namibia, as the country is seen to be a low priority for international donors now due to its high per capita income and political stability. Perceptions are that donors would rather spend remaining resources on “fashionable” topics like HIV-AIDS, leaving less funds for “traditional” themes like human rights, democracy promotion and gender equality.This paper is based on a number of interviews conducted at some NGOs in Windhoek and local donor representatives.It asks critically whether a shift in country priorities and the “flavour of the month” syndrome in international aid are really sufficient to explain changing funding patterns.The article acknowledges the fact that the overall direction of aid in Namibia has shifted with traditional “civil society” supporters like the Nordic countries pulling out and more state-oriented donors like the World Bank and the US coming in.It also takes into account that particular sectors like health indeed register a steep increase in funding.However, it argues that a great deal of the explanation for decreasing levels of funding for traditional civil society organisations is to be sought in donor-NGO relations and within the NGOs themselves.Shifts in the regime From the massive support for African states in the 1960s and 1970s to the World Bank’s structural adjustment in the 1980s and conditioned aid later on, state institutions have always been the main recipients of aid money.Only in the 1990s have donors “discovered” NGOs as alternative targets of aid as many states in Africa became chronically unstable and some arguably even “failed”.Namibian organisations benefited throughout the 1990s from this upsurge in NGO funding.Recent developments, however, indicate a shift back to international aid to states, especially those that are perceived to be stable.The Namibian state has thus become a powerful competitor to NGOs for available funds.Additionally, the HIV-AIDS pandemic is generally seen as the most “fashionable” topic in international aid at this moment, attracting higher levels of funding than other sectors.But how can this be reconciled with the statement of donors that overall spending on Namibian NGOs has not decreased in the past? It is argued that the answer lies in how the available funding is now distributed and the reasons for which it is given.From core to project The most decisive change in NGO funding over the past few years was that donors were moving away from core funding, i.e.from money given to a particular NGO to pay salaries and rent.Money is now only granted for particular projects and for much shorter periods.This had two important consequences for the everyday NGO work.Firstly it meant a loss of the NGOs’ ability to comment quickly on urgent matters.With money tied to particular projects it is impossible to fund research on issues whose momentum would be lost if the project had to go through the whole budget application process.The second main consequence was the decreasing ability of NGOs to compete with government and the private sector for qualified people.Short-term budgets meant that NGOs could not offer the same security to their employees as governmental agencies and private sector companies.The shift from core to project based funding might lead to a vicious circle in the future when NGOs attract less funding because of poorly planned projects and can thus not afford to employ the best qualified people resulting in mediocre work which leads again to decreasing levels of funding.Where funding has actually been withdrawn from a particular NGO and not only turned into project based aid, it was mostly for reasons having to do with changed donor expectations, with a general lack of communication between donor and recipient and with the level of proficiency in the NGO.Shifts in expectations Donor expectations of what NGOs should “deliver” have become ever more demanding over the last few years.Especially demands of form, like management, reporting on projects and accounting, have become central for funding approval as private sector consultants have started to compete with NGOs for assignments and donors now need to prove that they spend their money on the best candidate for the job.The contents of NGO projects seem to be of secondary importance for the funding decisions.None of the donor representatives I talked to seriously doubted the importance of NGO work for Namibia and very few categorically ruled out funding a specific topic.Communication NGOs seem to be all too aware of the increased management expectations donors have, but my impression was that they occasionally suspected that these were excuses obfuscating the “real” reasons for the decline, i.e.donors’ refusal to fund “unfashionable” topics NGOs took up.To clarify why funds have been cut in particular cases a much-improved communication seems to be essential.A regular and open exchange will aid NGOs in understanding how donors are bound by obligations towards their home country, the Namibian government and trends within the international aid discourse.Donors on the other hand will have a better grasp of the essential dilemmas NGOs face in the new funding paradigm.Lack of capacity Even if information exchange was to be much improved, my interview partners agreed that this would not ensure that NGOs were actually able to fulfil the expectations donors placed on them.Despite several years of capacity building, the not-for-profit sector is still seen to lack fundamental fundraising, project management and accounting skills.There seems to be no coordinated effort to raise the level of management and project planning skills on a broader scale and in a sustainable way.ways out What can be done to improve the situation of the not-for-profit sector in Namibia again? Arguably the simplest solution to look for international donors still funding NGOs on the old terms was seen as not sustainable as new donors would eventually place similar demands that the old ones had done.New sources of funding could also include local sponsors like the private sector and the government but in Namibia the scope for this is perhaps limited.Many interviewees have pointed out that in other countries’ governments support parts of their civil societies.Social responsibility programmes of large private companies were also seen as potential new source of funds.However, both governmental support and private sector funding would require some fundamental changes in how NGOs work, including a concerted effort from all NGOs to keep the sector independent from state agencies.The private sector would require much more publicity in the reporting of project results and NGOs would have to focus more on the PR side of their work.Charging those benefiting from NGO work for the services provided as well as commercially investing some of the funding were both mentioned but always seen to be only additional measures to raise some funds.New outlook The radical decline of NGO funds might call for more drastic changes in the way they are organised and work.The following section tries to play out some ideas about a possible reshuffling of the NGO sector.It is not meant as final account on how the future will look, but should be read as an invitation to think outside the box and speculate playfully about possibilities of radical transformation and renewal.If NGOs were left alone to raise their own funds, would it not make sense to split them in two separate parts, one working for gain as private consultants and one using the income thus raised for philanthropic work? Thinking this through further, with project-based funding as the norm, it is arguably more sensible to have autonomous small units splitting and merging according to actual projects rather than having fixed NGO structures containing certain sub-units.Some might call this a more flexible structure; others would see it as ultimately elusive and as the end of the tradit
ional NGO as main agent of public interest work.Irrespective of whether this would be a good or bad development, it would not be possible without a strong coordinating and lobbying body representing the different projects vis-à-vis the government, the private sector and international donors.The obvious organisation to do this would be a revitalised and strong administrative Nangof.The umbrella should only be a coordinating secretariat, providing some resources that could be used by different units like a central fundraiser and a shared building.Nangof ‘s most important task of all would be to oversee possibilities for cooperation and ensure that Namibia’s public interest sector speaks with one voice.There have been some revitalising efforts for Nangof in the past year.It would be a great opportunity missed if the umbrella started again to compete for funds with single NGOs instead of taking on truly coordinating tasks.Even if future changes fall short of modulating the whole set up of the NGO work in Namibia, a strong coordinating and lobbying body will be essential for a vital NGO sector that takes care of its own survival.I had the impression that people were already resigned to Nangof ‘s failures.I was left wondering who exactly would be to blame if the umbrella was to fail again, as nobody seemed to feel responsible for its success in the first place.I read this as indication for an urgent need to improve the communication not only between donors and NGOs but also between NGOs themselves.They need to talk about expectations and possible solutions to the funding crisis if the situation for the Namibian NGO sector is to be improved in a sustainable way.* Sabine Hoehn is a PhD candidate at the Centre for African Studies, University of Edinburgh.Perceptions are that donors would rather spend remaining resources on “fashionable” topics like HIV-AIDS, leaving less funds for “traditional” themes like human rights, democracy promotion and gender equality.This paper is based on a number of interviews conducted at some NGOs in Windhoek and local donor representatives.It asks critically whether a shift in country priorities and the “flavour of the month” syndrome in international aid are really sufficient to explain changing funding patterns.The article acknowledges the fact that the overall direction of aid in Namibia has shifted with traditional “civil society” supporters like the Nordic countries pulling out and more state-oriented donors like the World Bank and the US coming in.It also takes into account that particular sectors like health indeed register a steep increase in funding.However, it argues that a great deal of the explanation for decreasing levels of funding for traditional civil society organisations is to be sought in donor-NGO relations and within the NGOs themselves.Shifts in the regime From the massive support for African states in the 1960s and 1970s to the World Bank’s structural adjustment in the 1980s and conditioned aid later on, state institutions have always been the main recipients of aid money.Only in the 1990s have donors “discovered” NGOs as alternative targets of aid as many states in Africa became chronically unstable and some arguably even “failed”.Namibian organisations benefited throughout the 1990s from this upsurge in NGO funding.Recent developments, however, indicate a shift back to international aid to states, especially those that are perceived to be stable.The Namibian state has thus become a powerful competitor to NGOs for available funds.Additionally, the HIV-AIDS pandemic is generally seen as the most “fashionable” topic in international aid at this moment, attracting higher levels of funding than other sectors.But how can this be reconciled with the statement of donors that overall spending on Namibian NGOs has not decreased in the past? It is argued that the answer lies in how the available funding is now distributed and the reasons for which it is given.From core to project The most decisive change in NGO funding over the past few years was that donors were moving away from core funding, i.e.from money given to a particular NGO to pay salaries and rent.Money is now only granted for particular projects and for much shorter periods.This had two important consequences for the everyday NGO work.Firstly it meant a loss of the NGOs’ ability to comment quickly on urgent matters.With money tied to particular projects it is impossible to fund research on issues whose momentum would be lost if the project had to go through the whole budget application process.The second main consequence was the decreasing ability of NGOs to compete with government and the private sector for qualified people.Short-term budgets meant that NGOs could not offer the same security to their employees as governmental agencies and private sector companies.The shift from core to project based funding might lead to a vicious circle in the future when NGOs attract less funding because of poorly planned projects and can thus not afford to employ the best qualified people resulting in mediocre work which leads again to decreasing levels of funding.Where funding has actually been withdrawn from a particular NGO and not only turned into project based aid, it was mostly for reasons having to do with changed donor expectations, with a general lack of communication between donor and recipient and with the level of proficiency in the NGO.Shifts in expectations Donor expectations of what NGOs should “deliver” have become ever more demanding over the last few years.Especially demands of form, like management, reporting on projects and accounting, have become central for funding approval as private sector consultants have started to compete with NGOs for assignments and donors now need to prove that they spend their money on the best candidate for the job.The contents of NGO projects seem to be of secondary importance for the funding decisions.None of the donor representatives I talked to seriously doubted the importance of NGO work for Namibia and very few categorically ruled out funding a specific topic. Communication NGOs seem to be all too aware of the increased management expectations donors have, but my impression was that they occasionally suspected that these were excuses obfuscating the “real” reasons for the decline, i.e.donors’ refusal to fund “unfashionable” topics NGOs took up.To clarify why funds have been cut in particular cases a much-improved communication seems to be essential.A regular and open exchange will aid NGOs in understanding how donors are bound by obligations towards their home country, the Namibian government and trends within the international aid discourse.Donors on the other hand will have a better grasp of the essential dilemmas NGOs face in the new funding paradigm.Lack of capacity Even if information exchange was to be much improved, my interview partners agreed that this would not ensure that NGOs were actually able to fulfil the expectations donors placed on them.Despite several years of capacity building, the not-for-profit sector is still seen to lack fundamental fundraising, project management and accounting skills.There seems to be no coordinated effort to raise the level of management and project planning skills on a broader scale and in a sustainable way.ways out What can be done to improve the situation of the not-for-profit sector in Namibia again? Arguably the simplest solution to look for international donors still funding NGOs on the old terms was seen as not sustainable as new donors would eventually place similar demands that the old ones had done.New sources of funding could also include local sponsors like the private sector and the government but in Namibia the scope for this is perhaps limited.Many interviewees have pointed out that in other countries’ governments support parts of their civil societies.Social responsibility programmes of large private companies were also seen as potential new source of funds.However, both governmental support and private sector funding would require some fundamental changes in how NGOs work, including a concerted effort from all NGOs to keep the sec
tor independent from state agencies.The private sector would require much more publicity in the reporting of project results and NGOs would have to focus more on the PR side of their work.Charging those benefiting from NGO work for the services provided as well as commercially investing some of the funding were both mentioned but always seen to be only additional measures to raise some funds. New outlook The radical decline of NGO funds might call for more drastic changes in the way they are organised and work.The following section tries to play out some ideas about a possible reshuffling of the NGO sector.It is not meant as final account on how the future will look, but should be read as an invitation to think outside the box and speculate playfully about possibilities of radical transformation and renewal.If NGOs were left alone to raise their own funds, would it not make sense to split them in two separate parts, one working for gain as private consultants and one using the income thus raised for philanthropic work? Thinking this through further, with project-based funding as the norm, it is arguably more sensible to have autonomous small units splitting and merging according to actual projects rather than having fixed NGO structures containing certain sub-units.Some might call this a more flexible structure; others would see it as ultimately elusive and as the end of the traditional NGO as main agent of public interest work.Irrespective of whether this would be a good or bad development, it would not be possible without a strong coordinating and lobbying body representing the different projects vis-à-vis the government, the private sector and international donors.The obvious organisation to do this would be a revitalised and strong administrative Nangof.The umbrella should only be a coordinating secretariat, providing some resources that could be used by different units like a central fundraiser and a shared building.Nangof ‘s most important task of all would be to oversee possibilities for cooperation and ensure that Namibia’s public interest sector speaks with one voice.There have been some revitalising efforts for Nangof in the past year.It would be a great opportunity missed if the umbrella started again to compete for funds with single NGOs instead of taking on truly coordinating tasks.Even if future changes fall short of modulating the whole set up of the NGO work in Namibia, a strong coordinating and lobbying body will be essential for a vital NGO sector that takes care of its own survival.I had the impression that people were already resigned to Nangof ‘s failures.I was left wondering who exactly would be to blame if the umbrella was to fail again, as nobody seemed to feel responsible for its success in the first place.I read this as indication for an urgent need to improve the communication not only between donors and NGOs but also between NGOs themselves.They need to talk about expectations and possible solutions to the funding crisis if the situation for the Namibian NGO sector is to be improved in a sustainable way.* Sabine Hoehn is a PhD candidate at the Centre for African Studies, University of Edinburgh.