What internal (governance, leadership, organizational capacities, etc.) and external (funding environment, public policies, socio-economic context, donor practices, etc.) factors are identified as determinants (positive or negative) for the strategic autonomy of these organizations?

Several internal and external factors are identified in the sources as determining factors for the strategic autonomy of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs).

DETERMINING INTERNAL FACTORS #

Organizational Capacities and Human Resources (HR)

• A lack of qualified staff is a major obstacle for small CSOs, impacting their ability to meet donors’ time-consuming monitoring and evaluation requirements and thus limiting their access to grants.
• Lack of HR can also prevent CSOs from learning about beneficial legal and tax frameworks.
• Limited organizational capacities, including a lack of clear division of responsibilities, a deficient communication and HR system, as well as insufficient financial resources, make the governance of small CSOs difficult and impact their ability to mobilize resources.
• Relying on volunteering or reduced wages can impact staff performance and motivation.
• The lack of monitoring and evaluation processes, despite the existence of strategic plans, is a gap that hinders the development of CSOs.
• Lack of time and funds limits the implementation of training for CSO members.
• The development of multi-year institutional, programmatic and financial capacity building programs is recommended to ensure the long-term empowerment of CSOs.
• The ability to include operating and structuring costs in project budgets is essential for the financial viability and therefore the autonomy of CSOs.
• Training in financial management and narrative and financial reporting improves accountability to donors and facilitates audits.

Governance and Leadership

• Difficult governance due to a lack of clear division of responsibilities and a deficient communication and HR system is a negative internal factor.
• The establishment of a board of directors and independent monitoring bodies, although often required by donors, may not be very practical for small CSOs.

Visibility and Credibility

• The lack of visibility of small CSOs, often due to limited resources, harms their attractiveness to financial partners.
• High visibility, achieved through financial reporting, digital presence and participation in human rights networks, strengthens the credibility and attractiveness of CSOs.
• Diversification of Sources of Financing:
• Relying on acquired funding, while neglecting the sustainability and diversification of funding sources, negatively impacts the viability of CSOs, given the instability of the funding obtained.
• The development of alternative financing methods (regional funds, private financing, crowdfunding) is a strategy for gaining autonomy.
• Diversification of funding (public, private, international, local philanthropy) is desirable for more sustainable projects and the financial sustainability of CSOs.

DETERMINING EXTERNAL FACTORS #

Funding Environment and Donor Practices

• The caution of donors and their demanding criteria (audit, legal existence, structuring, financial experience, respect for their themes) make access to funding difficult for small CSOs.
• The obligation to respect the themes proposed by donors, even if they do not correspond to local needs, can lead CSOs to carry out inappropriate actions and harm their legitimacy.
• Only 20% of grants would support the core mission of CSOs, with the remaining 80% meeting donor objectives.
• CSOs find themselves forced to accept often unrealistic conditions and objectives to secure funding.
• Rigid and exclusionary procedures imposed by international donors complicate access to financing.
• The strict and prohibitive criteria of certain donors, such as the EU, can favor INGOs to the detriment of local CSOs.
• Partnerships with donors can be unbalanced and lead to new difficulties for local CSOs.
• Funding from public and private donors remains marginal compared to international donors. Access to funding from private companies is generally limited for local CSOs.
• Donors tend to turn to funding CSOs in developing countries based on their local knowledge and their role in democratic promotion.
• Donors may require that CSOs have already received French funding or have a minimum budget to access larger funding (example of the AFD).
• Failure to take into account the specificities of human rights projects (long-term and qualitative impact) through funding can limit the strategic autonomy of CSOs working on these issues.
• Variations in themes from one year to the next by donors can compromise the sustainability of CSO programs.

Public Policy and Legal Context

• In some national contexts, the legal environment may be unfavourable to the development of CSOs. The deterioration of this environment can negatively impact the organisational capacities of CSOs.
• CSOs working on the rights of marginalized groups (MSG) may be constrained by laws criminalizing these populations, forcing them to adapt their language and potentially their strategies.
• Meeting donor demands can sometimes amount to submitting to the will of the state, leading some CSOs to focus on less politically sensitive areas.
• The administrative procedures for accessing funding can lead to political exclusion of certain organizations (example of the refusal of receipt in Cameroon).

Socio-economic Context and Relations with Other Actors

• CSOs must juggle the interests of various stakeholders: donors, local government, other CSOs (competing or collaborating), beneficiaries and members.
• Increasing the visibility of CSOs should not compromise their credibility with local communities, by avoiding being perceived as agents of donors.
• Implementing actions that are unsuited to local needs to satisfy donors can harm the legitimacy of the work of CSOs.

In summary, the strategic autonomy of CSOs is influenced by their internal capacity to structure themselves, manage their human and financial resources, develop their leadership and governance, and diversify their funding sources. It is also highly dependent on the external environment, including donor practices, public policies, the legal and socio-economic context, and their ability to navigate the interests of different actors. A power imbalance in the relationship with donors, administrative and political constraints, and a lack of internal capacity are all factors that can limit the strategic autonomy of CSOs. Conversely, strengthening internal capacities, diversifying funding, and a more favorable external environment can foster it.