Does the literature highlight significant variations in approaches, challenges or successes in strategic autonomy depending on the size of the organization, the sector of intervention, the geographic region (e.g., French-speaking vs. English-speaking Africa) or the national context?
The literature highlights significant variations in approaches, challenges or successes in strategic autonomy depending on several factors, including organizational size and national context.
Regarding the size of the organization, sources emphasize that small CSOs are particularly disadvantaged in Central Africa. They face significant challenges in accessing the various funding opportunities that exist, mainly due to the lack of highly qualified personnel and the weakness of their governance structures and mechanisms. Moreover, the criteria imposed by donors are often more restrictive for these small CSOs. These criteria include the obligation to respect the themes proposed by donors even if they do not entirely correspond to their initial area of action, the need to demonstrate good structuring with qualified personnel (when they often lack them), and the requirement of financial experience in managing large funding. Obtaining proof of legal existence, such as a declaration receipt, can also be very difficult depending on the national context.
Regarding the sector of intervention, sources indicate that funding for the human rights sector varies by country. Furthermore, donors tend to fund sectors that are not necessarily priorities for CSOs in the countries in which they operate. This suggests that CSOs operating in sectors less favored by donors may face greater difficulties in achieving strategic autonomy due to limited access to funding.
In terms of geographic region, the sources do not provide a direct comparison between Francophone and Anglophone Africa in terms of NGO/CSO strategic autonomy. However, it is mentioned that Congo-Brazzaville (a French-speaking country) offers some funding opportunities for the human rights sector through the French Embassy, although access remains limited. The report focuses on Central Africa, which includes Francophone countries, and the challenges described appear largely applicable in this sub-region. The EIB study notes that North and Southern Africa implemented the largest number of financial sector support measures during the COVID-19 crisis, which could indicate regional variations in government support having an indirect impact on the financial stability of CSOs. The analysis of banking sectors by sub-region (North, West, Central, East, Southern Africa) in the EIB report reveals differences in financial depth and access to credit for the private sector, which could influence the fundraising capacities of CSOs from local actors.
The national context appears to be a determining factor. Difficulties in obtaining proof of legal existence and the variation in financing opportunities across countries illustrate the influence of the national context. Moreover, the response of financial sectors and public authorities to crises such as COVID-19 has varied across regions and countries, which may have impacted CSOs’ ability to access financial resources and strengthen their strategic autonomy differently in different national contexts. The EIB study details the state of financial sectors in various African regions, highlighting that the level of credit market development and barriers to financing vary considerably from one country to another, potentially affecting local financing opportunities for CSOs.
In summary, the sources highlight significant variations in strategic autonomy challenges, mainly depending on the size of the organization (smaller CSOs being more vulnerable) and the national context (regulations, variable funding opportunities). Differences related to the sector of intervention are also suggested, while a direct comparison between Francophone and Anglophone Africa is not explicitly addressed in the sources provided.
