BY Sibusiso Malunga, Shubha Kayastha
(1) On the challenging minutiae we face when it comes to the funding ecosystem
Sibu:
Let me start here. It’s sometimes challenging to have authentic conversations with donors, even if those conversations could potentially help us. For example, if there’s an issue with a certain organization or group, we should be able to discuss it openly to find a resolution. However, it sometimes feels like we’re being pitted against each other, creating an unhealthy competition. Depending on our integrity and our care for the movement, we may either try to please donors by hiding what’s happening on the ground or genuinely address the issues caused by this competition.
Even in moments when a movement may need intervention or conflict resolution, we are hesitant to speak up because we fear it will be used against us. One area that has influenced how I perceive funding and its movement is the HIV space, particularly in my country, Zambia. In this space, there are power dynamics at play. There are international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) and PEPFAR, who provide the funding, and there are local organizations who do the work. PEPFAR provides the funds to the INGOs to support the local organizations, right? However, the INGOs also have a vested interest in not going out of business, as it is more of a business for them than social justice.
Therefore, INGOs strive to ensure that your growth is not obvious. For instance, they may impose various layers of capacity strengthening before allowing direct implementation. These power dynamics need to be acknowledged. Even the accountability level is skewed. As small organizations, we should be accountable to one source, but that kind of accountability is lacking. So, even if you have ideas that could accelerate the capacity building or strengthening they talk about, they may not be taken into account because it would mean the INGOs would lose their business.
(2) On tokenistic practices and going beyond the surface look
Sibu:
My mind is continuously pondering the idea that different identities are assumed based on the source of funding and the donor. There’s something interesting you mentioned about individuals occupying certain spaces. This is particularly true when you consider using particular channels to move money. Often, these channels have established relationships.
In situations where funding priorities shift, organizations that were previously funded, say women’s rights organizations at the regional level, may be replaced by national level organizations. However, there may still be individuals from the regional organizations who hold positions of power within the national organization. Sometimes, a regional organization may register as a national organization in multiple countries, but the power dynamics remain the same. We continuously search for solutions to improve funding practices, but people always find ways to infiltrate and maintain their existing positions.
This is because funding is also about building relationships, and it’s easy to switch roles as long as the personal connection remains. I have observed this happening a lot in my country, with international NGOs registering as local NGOs to access resources. Due to their expertise in navigating the system, this creates an unfair competition among organizations claiming to be local. In reality, these are just international NGOs in different attire, maintaining the same employees, systems, and projects.
From where I stand, it seems like we are trying to make changes, but not necessarily in the most authentic and effective ways. It’s almost as if our civil society is making superficial changes to appease certain individuals, while the system itself remains the same or even worsens. As civil society, do we have the power to question this? Is changing one to five things really benefiting us?
(3) On mutual accountability between donor foundations, women’s funds, and grantees
Shubha:
I’ve noticed more and more women’s funds being established, especially in different regions. But sometimes the requirements during reporting for women’s funds are more stringent than when reporting for foundations. Additionally, when it comes to budgeting, there is still a conventional approach to work. For instance, there is still a limit to the percentage that can go towards HR and admin. In our case (in Nepal), there are national policies that restrict us from allocating funds to HR beyond a certain percentage of the total budget of any project or else the projects aren’t approved. Thus it takes quite a bit of navigation to meet the requirements of both strict government regulations and funders’ regulations.
When dealing with traditional funders, you can stick to the usual conversation, provide them with progress updates, and discuss challenges. But when it comes to women’s funders, it’s different. Given that many of them are friends and feminist colleagues, it can be unclear how much to share about your work and the movement at home, whether in reports or during meetings.
(4) On the politics of labour and passion
Sibu:
Now, when it comes to organizations, we often undervalue ourselves and what we bring to the table. But it seems that because we started this work out of passion, we feel like we should solely rely on that passion and not be compensated for the work we do, even if it’s a role that requires 150% effort.
Sometimes I wonder if this mindset stems from the history of activism, where some individuals came from privileged backgrounds. For instance, there are organizations that were founded by individuals who had inherited wealth and now they provide funding. Naturally, these individuals may not require a salary.
So, when they submit proposals, they look very different compared to someone who still needs to support themselves while doing this work. How can I ensure that I can do this work safely and still have a livelihood at the end of the day? It feels like we have all adopted the mindset that the less we demand for ourselves, the better it is for the project.
But what does that mean for the sustainability of the movement? We keep transitioning out to explore other opportunities, yet the work still needs to be done. We still need to invest in the work because there is valuable experience required at the country level. However, as we transition into regional spaces or women’s funding spaces, we have to change the system or the system changes us. Most of the time, by the time we enter these spaces, we are exhausted and lack the energy to actually make changes.
So, those of us on the ground have hope that our representatives will bring about change. But they encounter a different system that they were probably not aware of, and delivering what we expect from them turns out to be quite challenging. But from our perspective, that person represents hope, and we wonder why they are not doing what we expected them to do.
I believe that they also need our support. We need to find ways to have these conversations.
(5) On reimagining flexibility and support from donors
Shubha:
One of the good experiences we had was the flexibility of the funders. For example, one of our core grantees asked us twice if we needed an accompaniment grant. At first, I had no idea what it was. They sent us a whole set of documents explaining it, including a communications strategy, strategic plan, and HR considerations. They also guided us on how to apply for that grant and what it could entail.
This initiative from the funders, after a few years of partnership, was eye-opening. It made me realize that we could also ask funders for these kinds of things. I had no clue before, you know?
During the pandemic, the funders were also flexible. Since we couldn’t do much work, we had accumulated funds in our bank. We asked the funders if we could share this money with local groups, and they were supportive. It was a big step for them to allow us to give money to organizations they didn’t know. I appreciated their trust in us to find small groups to benefit from the funds.
Sibu:
There is another point I would like to add. Building on the idea of raising your own resources, I also believe that funders should consider sustainable ways of funding local organizations.
Let me provide an example. Perhaps a fund could support you for the next three years. During that time, they would provide rent money. By the end of the three years, the rent money you would have paid could have actually been used to purchase your own space. Instead, you end up paying rent, and after three years, the money is gone, but the organization still needs resources. It would have been more beneficial if those resources had been used to buy the space.
So, how can we transition from the mindset of providing small pieces of funding to sustain organizations, to a more sustainable approach?
Additionally, in Zambia, we are starting to explore the concept of social entrepreneurship. However, initially, we need to invest in people learning how to run a business because we are primarily activists and organizations. Therefore, providing support for people to generate their own income through a business is crucial. Sometimes, organizations have a surplus of funding for several years, and that money sits in their bank accounts, when it could be used to generate even more funds and give back.
However, this approach requires strong accountability channels within the organization, increased trust, and additional work. It is a new idea for us, something we are still exploring. But with the necessary care, support, and flexibility, it seems hopeful enough to allow organizations to engage in meaningful and necessary work without being reliant on donors.
Having our own resources would enable us to allocate them based on the most pressing needs, without having to think about specific donor requirements, such as reporting a specific number of people served.
Instead, we can focus on ensuring the organization is sustained by implementing the right policies and ensuring we have healthy individuals within the organization who can carry out the work. Because most of the time, we prioritize the work itself, without considering the well-being of the people involved.
So how can we prioritize taking care of our people while still being able to do the work?
I believe there are several ways we can fundraise and ensure that we prioritize our people as much as we prioritize the work. It’s important to remember that the people working are also human beings who deserve our attention and support.
(6) On supporting the livelihoods of feminists
Shubha:
National regulations can pose obstacles. In Nepal, even if we receive sufficient funding, organisations can’t pay staff well because the government would not approve the project if the salary expenses are too high. In other countries, governments are imposing strict laws and censorship of civic spaces, making it impossible for NGOs and civil society groups to exist. Can funders help us figure out alternative ways of existing and still provide us with grants in such circumstances? Because generosity and flexible grants alone are not sufficient, we need individuals who possess strategic thinking and can find ways to navigate around obstacles.
(7) What conversations do we need to have? Final thoughts about the way forward
Shubha:
I participated in a panel at a funders conference where I felt a lot of attention was directed at me, which made me uncomfortable. As a representative of a national level organisation, speaking in front of numerous funders adds a lot of pressure. It’s impossible to represent the entire country or movement because our needs, issues, work, backgrounds, and organizational structures are so different. I think this strategy should go hand in hand with other strategies.
The reports to the funders by groups and organisation usually have a lot of content on the ongoing discourse and challenges they are facing and I think the narrative (as well as financial) reports are great sources of information to understand the challenges that can push us to come up with potential solutions. If funders are to invest more time and attention to what is being communicated directly through reports or through regional studies/observations, it would lessen the burden for activists on the group in explaining their realities.
Read the report.
Sibu:
Apart from reading the report, I realize that quantitative reports are often preferred over qualitative ones because they are easier to skim through without delving into the nuances behind the numbers. In the HIV field, we tend to focus heavily on quantitative data and rarely consider the qualitative aspects.
Reading reports is important, but it’s equally important to engage in discussions that allow us to provide useful information for the funders. Moreover, civil society organizations should intentionally create spaces that facilitate honest conversations without the power dynamics at play. See how it has been easy for us to have an honest conversation with each other right because we don’t have that power thing at play.
If we can have more perspectives from the Global South on civil society and funding, I would be more than willing to contribute to that conversation. Most of the time, I am comfortable discussing these things with funders. This is partly because of my position within the movement, which has made it easier for me to address certain issues. So, I have no problem talking about this. However, I can only discuss what I know, and there are many other issues that I am not familiar with.
So, how do we ensure that those who are speaking have the necessary context to discuss these matters without relying on just one perspective? Because there is potential harm in only hearing a single story. Yes, we can still seize these opportunities because they are important. They are what we have right now.
But how can we engage with these opportunities in a more meaningful way so that we can shed light on all the realities that we are leaving unaddressed? And how can we continue to create our own spaces where we are not heavily influenced, and where we can freely bring our authentic selves and analyses without the fear of saying the wrong thing, you know?