What are the main conceptual frameworks and operational definitions used in the literature to understand the strategic autonomy of African NGOs/CSOs, and what are the tensions or debates identified around this concept?
The main conceptual frameworks and operational definitions used in the literature to understand the strategic autonomy of African NGOs/CSOs highlight the power dynamics central to their operations, particularly with regard to funding and ownership of development projects. Achieving policy autonomy and independence is a key objective for African NGOs.
The analysis of this autonomy is based on a critical assessment of the complex and multi-level relationships between NGOs and their donor partners. The literature highlights that experiences with donor agencies crucially shape NGO programming, particularly in the area of poverty alleviation. Thus, strategic autonomy can be operationally defined as an NGO’s ability to design, implement, and sustain its programs in accordance with its mission and the needs of local populations, while navigating the demands and priorities of funders without compromising its core orientation.
More specifically, the DEFI report highlights that autonomy is closely linked to the diversification of funding sources to avoid excessive dependence on international donors. The ability to mobilize resources is directly impacted by the organizational capacities of CSOs. Moreover, autonomy implies the ability to prioritize local needs when writing projects, in collaboration with the population, rather than focusing solely on donor objectives.
The tensions and debates identified around this concept are numerous:
- Financial Dependence vs. Programmatic Independence: Small CSOs in Central Africa are often heavily dependent on international funding, which can influence the design and implementation of their programs. The survival of these organizations is largely tied to these funds.
- Donor agendas vs. local priorities: Donors tend to fund sectors that do not always align with local CSO priorities and the needs of local populations. Only a small proportion of grants support CSOs’ core missions, pushing them to carry out actions that are unsuitable for local needs but aligned with donor objectives.
- Donor criteria vs. CSO capacity: Donor criteria for auditing, organizational structure, financial experience, and adherence to thematic areas can be difficult for small CSOs to meet, limiting their access to funding and thus their autonomy. The lack of qualified personnel and adequate financial resources within CSOs complicates this situation.
- Constraining national contexts: The institutional, political, and legal environments in which CSOs operate can significantly impact their funding and ability to operate autonomously. For example, CSOs working on sensitive issues such as the rights of sexual minorities may be constrained by local legislation. The politicization of public aid can also marginalize some CSOs.
- Short-term vision vs. sustainability: Donors may perceive local CSOs as short-term, preferring to channel funds through INGOs. For their part, some CSOs rely on acquired funding without seeking to diversify their sources, which undermines their long-term sustainability.
- Visibility and credibility: CSOs must juggle the need for visibility to attract funding and maintaining their credibility with local communities to avoid being perceived as agents of donors.
The literature suggests that to strengthen their strategic autonomy, CSOs must prioritize networking, diversify their funding sources, and strengthen their organizational and financial capacities. It is also crucial to ensure greater involvement of local populations in project design and to advocate for funding modalities more suited to their realities. Furthermore, recognizing the value of CSOs’ local knowledge is essential.
