Content uploaded by Lau Schulpen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lau Schulpen on Dec 14, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
I
Where do we
go from here?
Navigating power inequalities between
development NGOs in the aid system
NICOLA BANKS
BADRU BUKENYA
WILLEM ELBERS
INNOCENT KAMYA
EMMANUEL KUMI
LAU SCHULPEN
GIJS VAN SELM
MARGIT VAN WESSEL
THOMAS YEBOAH
January 2024
Where do we go from here? II
Nicola Banks
University of Manchester (United Kingdom)
Badru Bukenya
Makerere University, Kampala (Uganda)
Willem Elbers
Radboud University, Nijmegen (the Netherlands)
Innocent Kamya
Makerere University, Kampala (Uganda)
Emmanuel Kumi
University of Ghana, Accra (Ghana)
Lau Schulpen
Radboud University, Nijmegen (the Netherlands)
Gijs van Selm
London School of Economics and Political Science (United Kingdom)
Margit van Wessel
Wageningen University (the Netherlands)
Thomas Yeboah
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (Ghana)
III
Acknowledgements
This research would not have been possible without the input and collaboration of many people and
organisations. We thank Partos and especially Alexander Medik for supporting this project as one of the
actions of the Partos Shift-the-power Lab 2.0. We thank the many survey respondents and interviewees
for sharing their experiences and reflections with us. We thank the civil society organisations that opened
their doors to us in Ghana and Uganda, for taking time and allowing us to learn about their efforts. Final-
ly, we thank the Sounding Board that provided valuable input at key moments during this research: Nicola
Barrett, Katherine Belen, Heleen Broekkamp, Stella Chege, Sever Dzigurski, Helen Evertsz, Giorgio Ferra-
ri, Alan Fowler, Paul Gabula, Jobien Hekking, Reinier van Hoffen, Carrie S. Huisman, Moses Isooba, An-
gela Jansen, Siri Lijfering, Khatra Koshin, Esther Mees, Tim Myles, Kate Newman, Hester Pronk, Matthijs
van Pijkeren, Hannah Postma, Teddy van de Put, Zunera Rana, Axel Rooden, Alex Ross, Leah Roozendaal,
Anouska Traast, Koenraad van Brabant and Erica Wortel.
Where do we go from here? IV
This research was conducted by ARPI (Academics Researching Power Imbalances), a group of research-
ers from Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (Thomas Ye boah) and University of Gha-
na (Emmanuel Kumi) in Ghana, Makerere University (Badru Bukenya and Innocent Kamya) in Uganda,
University of Manchester (Nicola Banks) and London School of Economics and Political Science (Gijs van
Selm) in the United Kingdom, and Wageningen University & Research (Margit van Wessel) and Radboud
University (Willem Elbers and Lau Schulpen) in the Netherlands.
This research was conducted with the support of and under the Partos ‘Shift the Power Lab 2.0’. Partos is
the membership body for Dutch-based organisations working in development cooperation. For multiple
years Partos has actively supported the ‘shift the power’ movement pushing for more equal power rela-
tionships within development cooperation. In the ‘Shift the Power Lab 2.0’ more than 150 development
professionals are working in 6 working groups on 6 practical solutions for achieving more balanced power
relations in international partnerships for development.
For more information about Partos go to www.partos.nl/en
Material in this publication may be freely used, shared, copied, reproduced, printed, and stored, totally or in part, provided that all such
material is clearly attributed to the authors, and reference to the document is made.
Design and layout: Luc Dinnissen (studio ds)
V
Contents
List of figures, tables and boxes | VI
1. Executive summary | 1
2. Introduction | 4
3. Methodology | 6
4. Creating a shared understanding | 7
5. What’s the problem? | 8
Do the terms matter? | 8
Understanding power imbalances between NNGOs and SNGOs | 10
6. What actions are being undertaken to close the gap? | 16
Mapping actions to redistribute power: diversity prevails | 16
Priorities for action: addressing inequalities in funding, policy and programming | 29
Northern and Southern priorities in focusing future efforts | 30
7. Evaluating the pace and (barriers to) success of actions | 32
Things are moving... but not quickly enough | 33
Interests, resources and restriction: barriers to change | 35
What is the biggest barrier to change? | 38
8. Conclusion & discussion | 44
Where are Northern and Southern actors on the same page? | 44
Are we going far enough? | 45
What is holding us back? | 46
Where do we go from here? Increasing momentum towards systemic change | 48
References | 51
Appendix 1. Full methodology | 53
Appendix 2. Background details of survey respondents | 59
Appendix 3. Ghana case studies | 62
Appendix 4. Uganda case study | 73
Appendix 5. Analysis of documented initiatives | 87
Where do we go from here? VI
List of figures, tables and boxes
Figure 1 Familiarity with central terms, with division between NNGOs and SNGOs, in % (n=445)
Figure 2 Terminology used in thinking and action on power relations, with division between NNGOs and SNGOs, in %
(n=442)
Figure 3 Perceived (in)equality of power relations between …, with division between NNGOs and SNGOs, in % (n=443 and
n=337)
Figure 4 Main sources of power asymmetries between Global North and Global South development organisations, with
division between NNGOs and SNGOs, in % (n=342)
Figure 5 Have actions aimed at tackling power imbalances been discussed internally and with NGO partners?, with divi-
sion between NNGOs and SNGOs, in % (n=343 and n=336)
Figure 6 Who initiated the discussion about actions with NGO partners?, with division between NNGOs and SNGOs, in %
(n=226)
Figure 7 Undertaken any actions to change power relations, with division between NNGOs and SNGOs, in % (n=348)
Figure 8 Areas which actions touch upon, divided between NNGOs and SNGOs, in %
Figure 9 Actions undertaken in the area of policy, divided between NNGOs and SNGOs, in % (n=120)
Figure 10 Actions in the programme area, distinguishing between NNGOs and SNGOs, in % (n=129)
Figure 11 Actions undertaken in the area of governance, with division between NNGOs and SNGOs, in % (n=101)
Figure 12 Actions undertaken in the area of funding, with division between NNGOs and SNGOs, in % (n=122)
Figure 13 Actions undertaken in the area of language, with division between NNGOs and SNGOs, in % (n=81)
Figure 14 Ranking areas of actions to combat power imbalances, with division between NNGOs and SNGOs, in %
Figure 15 Preferred priorities for tackling power imbalances between NGOs in the Global North and South, with division
between NNGOs and SNGOs, in % (n=343)
Figure 16 Pace of change within the own organisation, with division between NNGOs and SNGOs, in % (n=181)
Figure 17 Pace of change of partners compared to own organisation, with division between NNGOs and SNGOs, in %
(n=181)
Figure 18 Barriers experienced in actions to change power relations, with division between NNGOs and SNGOs, in %
(n=172)
Figure 19 Primary concern or barrier experienced, with division between NNGOs and SNGOs, in % (n=121)
Table 1 Core areas of power imbalance
Box 1 What areas of action do our case studies focus upon?
Box 2 Capacity strengthening and the NGO-isation of local responders in Uganda
Box 3 Inclusion of local CSOs in governance structure of the WVL in Ghana
Box 4 Giving for Change (GfC) Project and Capacity Building for Domestic Resource Mobilisation
Box 5 Uganda’s ELNHA: Building collective space and voice of local humanitarian actors.
Box 6 Shifting Power or Shifting the Problem? New Intermediary Organisations in Ghana and Uganda
1. Executive summary 1
SNGOs and NNGOs report that changing pow-
er imbalances is not moving fast or far enough,
whether we consider the general progress of the
sector or within the confines of particular partner-
ships. A majority of NNGO and SNGOs reported
having taken some action across a spectrum of
areas that includes policy, programming, internal
governance, improved funding and use of lan-
guage and stereotyping. While actions towards
improving language use and negative stereotyping
are more prominent among Northern than South-
ern NGOs, programming and improvements to
funding (principally in terms of building capacity
for domestic resource mobilisation) are the most
commonly taken actions. Actions are less fre-
quently occurring in the areas of internal policy
and governance. Crucial here is that the latter two
are the more foundational areas in that they are
rolled out through entire organisations and part-
nerships – rather than tested within or confined to
particular programmes. Moreover, decision-mak-
ing within several areas (e.g., in programming)
takes place within the overall framework of the un-
derlying policy framework. In effect, while SNGOs
are becoming more powerful at the programmatic
level, their ability to influence the overall frame-
work in which the programmes must take place
remains limited.
1. Executive summary
This research examines the extent and nature of concrete actions undertaken by Northern NGOs and
Southern NGOs to tackle power asymmetries, explicitly comparing their understandings, perspectives
and initiatives.
It comes as no surprise that most NGOs, whether from the Global North or South, believe that there
is a significant power imbalance between NNGOs and SNGOs, with both sides reporting that their
own partnerships are performing ‘better’ regarding power imbalances. Also on both sides, organisa-
tions see ‘the bigger system’ as problematic.
This research reveals a shared understanding of and frustration around a global aid system founded
on colonial legacies of inequality that raise serious questions about whether it is fit for purpose. Glob-
al agendas and priorities are seen as dominated by Northern actors and interests, with funding sys-
tems maintaining this hierarchy. Across all actors, funding is considered the primary source of power
imbalances and dominates the priorities of NGOs in the North and South.
This raises the question of how to progress towards more equitable relationships between SNGOs
and NNGOs (and the processes and outcomes in policies, programmes and funding within these)
while simultaneously balancing this with the need for deeper systemic change.
2 Where do we go from here?
There is unease that NNGOs are often in the driv-
ing seat of activities seeking to address unequal
power relations. Besides, the actions undertaken
to address power imbalances are the first steps
on the ladder – some actions can be considered
a bare minimum even under the traditional inter-
national development model. That means, while
some tangible actions may be taken in the right
direction, we saw few imbalances being equalised.
This is particularly clear in comparing actions in
programming and policy. Whereas many actions
in policy do not go further than consulting part-
ners, in programming, equal decision-making is
more frequent.
SNGOs are more powerful
at the programmatic level,
but their ability to influence
the overall framework
remains limited
Actors in both the North and South are aware that
progress is slower than they would like, and this
is exacerbated by the continuing demands across
the sector (particularly those actors in the North)
to move beyond rhetoric towards more signifi-
cant concrete action(s). Unfortunately, there are
many barriers to progress. SNGOs and NNGOs
agree that time and resources (namely, where to
find them) to invest in these activities, what to
do and how to do it (given a lack of tangible ‘best
practice’ emerging in the sector), and institutional
resilience to change are prominent barriers. Fear
is also a recognisable barrier – around what to do,
how to approach it, and even fear of success and
what this would ultimately imply for their power,
position, and survival.
There are also important distinctions between the
challenges faced by NNGOs and SNGOs. NN-
GOs indicate that the biggest obstacle(s) to prog-
ress within this sphere is beyond the confines of
their relationship (thus excusing them from a lack
of progress). However, responses from SNGOs
hold up a mirror to the limits of their willingness
and ability to rebalance power inequalities. Be-
sides, SNGOs also highlight, more frequently than
NNGOs, that ‘partners are not listening’, that
they hold different interests from their partners,
and that their agenda to shift power is likely to be
co-opted by their more powerful partners.
Ultimately, partnership – and how NNGOs can be
‘a good partner’ – should be part of any ambition
to work towards a new power balance between the
Global North and South. Being ‘a good partner’
implies being able and willing to listen, build mu-
tual respect and understanding and trust one an-
other and invest in dialogue (e.g., creating spaces
for interpersonal engagements). For Northern
organisations, this requires learning Southern
NGOs’ priorities and asking them which support
roles they want to see from their Northern coun-
terparts.
Such partnership ideas are certainly not new, so
it is highly doubtful that a renewed ambition of
working towards becoming ‘good partners’ will be
sufficient. If that was the solution, it is reasonable
to assume that things would have changed long
ago. The results of this study raise the important
question of whether it is ultimately enough to lim-
it actions and activities aimed at addressing pow-
er imbalances within the organisation. In other
words, is being a ‘good partner’ sufficient? More
broadly, would the sum of all Northern individual
efforts to become good partners result in a true
reconfiguration of the existing North-South power
relation?
NNGOs: progress is largely
beyond the confines of our
relationships
This does not diminish the importance of North-
ern efforts to change their own practices. How-
ever, to address the root causes of the prevailing
power imbalances, SNGOs need to take control
and not just be ‘given’ new powers (which can
1. Executive summary 3
always be taken away). This is not a call for a
complete reversal of power imbalances between
NNGOs and SNGOs (as that would also mean a
reversal - and thus continuation - of power imbal-
ances) but a recognition that change is required
that allows Southern organisations and voices to
take the lead.
Systemic change requires
changes across all actors
- certainly also with
institutional donors
Such fundamental changes can only occur when
the broader system changes. This implies revising
the broader framework in which aid actors oper-
ate. Here, it relates to questions about who sets
agendas and makes key decisions, how resources
are distributed, and how actors are held account-
able. These systemic changes require change
across a broad array of actors. As institutional
donors are key architects of the international aid
system, systemic change without their active in-
volvement is simply not possible.
This is an essential lesson for SNGOs, NNGOs
and institutional donors alike to not only look
internally at what they are doing and what they
can do better within their organisations and rela-
tionships but also to work collectively to support
and advocate for efforts to push in the direction
of deeper, more transformative and Southern-led
change.
All development actors should ask themselves:
What dimensions of the system I am part of
should be changed to address power relations,
and in what way? What am I doing that promotes
such system change? Who else needs to be in-
volved and how must we cooperate in this?
This report is based on a mixed-method study employ-
ing an extensive survey, in-depth interviews, document
analyses and case studies. In total, this report reflects
the input of 458 respondents from across 55 coun-
tries; 53 interviews conducted across Western Europe,
Uganda and Ghana; and a review of organisational
publications on initiatives.
4 Where do we go from here?
2. Introduction
How NNGOs (Northern NGOs)1 and other
stakeholders in the aid chain can shift power and
resources to their partners globally is one of the
biggest and most important questions domi-
nating the aid sector globally. These debates are
accompanied by clear and loud demands from
SNGOs (Southern NGOs)2 that the time for more
equitable systems and relationships is now.
Many conversations and initiatives are be-
ing planned and/or taking place around these
themes. There is a need for these discussions and
actions to be accompanied by strong academic
research to explore what actions are being taken,
by whom and to what effect. What kinds of initia-
tives are these conversations inspiring? Do they
respond to demands from civil society organisa-
tions around the world? Are they sufficient to shift
the power in intrinsically unequal aid chains? This
knowledge is important in itself, but also to in-
form future action within the sector.
This research addresses this need and has been
conducted by a team of researchers based in
Ghana, The Netherlands, Uganda and the United
Kingdom. Although largely self-funded, it has been
supported by Partos, the Dutch membership body
for organisations working in international devel-
opment, as one of six actions funded through its
Shift the Power Lab (STP-Lab).3 With its focus on
Introduction 5
‘learning from concrete actions aimed at balanc-
ing power in North-South relations’, this research
provides more ‘clarity about how to achieve the
envisioned shifts in power’ and contribute to ‘a
shared sense of future direction and the upscaling
of concrete actions’ (Kapazoglou 2021:16).
The starting point for this research is threefold:
1. The recognition that North-South rela-
tionships in development cooperation
are marred by power imbalances in which
the roles of Northern NGOs ‘are biased
towards decision-making’ and the roles
of local CSOs ‘are biased towards deci-
sion-taking’ (Partos 2022: 7);4
2. The acknowledgement that these power imbal-
ances have a negative impact on the effective-
ness of the work of both NNGOs and SNGOs
and overshadow the central role that strong,
autonomous and empowered SNGOs must
play in development processes locally. There is
thus a definite need to tackle these inequalities
within the development cooperation system;
and
3. That empirical research is needed to feed the
mutual learning process of NNGOs and SN-
GOs, to strengthen the process of creating a
development cooperation system marked by
equality.
This research examines the extent, nature and
progress of concrete actions undertaken by NN-
GOs and SNGOs – as well as challenges faced
in the process – with the aim of tackling power
asymmetries in their engagements to achieve mu-
tually rewarding relations.
Insights hold up a mirror to the development sec-
tor and provide an opportunity for other NNGOs,
SNGOs and the broader development coopera-
tion community to learn, take and scale up con-
textually-relevant good practices and encourage a
willingness to unlearn and avoid disempowering
practices.
While cognisant of geographical nuances and
complexities masked by this binary terminology,
we explicitly distinguish between the understand-
ings, perspectives and initiatives of non-govern-
mental actors across the Global North and Global
South, asking the following questions:
1. What is the range of different understandings,
aims and priorities, and types of initiatives
aimed at addressing power imbalances be-
tween the organisations in the Global South
and North? How do these differ across these
geographies?
2. To what extent do different initiatives succeed
in contributing to shifting power?
3. What processes, factors and dynamics explain
the findings?
In answering these questions, the research com-
bines a focus on width (mapping the range of
innovations and identifying gaps) and depth
(examining cases to understand processes and
dynamics) through a mixed methods research
design outlined briefly in the next section and
elaborated in full in Appendix 1.
1 Here defined as NGO headquartered in the Global North
2 Here defined as NGO headquartered in the Global South
3 www.partos.nl/werkgroep/shift-the-power-lab-2-0
4 For this research we define power as ‘the ability to in-
fluence the outcomes of decision-making within collab-
orations between organizations’ (Elbers and Schulpen,
2011). We identified key decision-making topics, as the
ability of actors in a collaboration to influence the out-
comes of decision-making differs by topic, and mapped
the extent of influence that partners have on deci-
sion-making outcomes.
6 Where do we go from here?
A mixed methods research design (outlined in
full in Appendix 1) was crucial to meeting our
research aims and objectives. This had three core
components, namely:
1. A global survey administered online to map
the scope and breadth of shift the power ini-
tiatives being undertaken, exploring people’s
perspectives on shift the power and locally-led
initiative, what is being done or needs to be
done, and what are the (early or established)
outcomes of these. This received a total of
458 analysable responses, though for some
questions later in the survey we had a smaller
sample to draw upon (see Appendix 2 for our
respondents’ background data). In analysing
responses, we deliberately compare similari-
ties and differences in responses according to
geography. That is, we compared the thoughts,
experiences and outcomes reported by organ-
isations located in or headquartered in the
Global North with those located in or head-
quartered in the Global South.
While language is not neutral and we are aware
of the hierarchical and pejorative connotations
at play in this terminology of ‘Northern’ and
‘Southern’ NGOs, despite much discussion
and deliberation we have not yet found an al-
ternative language that we are happy with. We
conclude with some reflections and tentative
thoughts on this terminology in the conclu-
sions.
2. A range of key stakeholder interviews to build
an initial understanding around the knowledge
and perceptions of localisation, locally-led de-
velopment and shift the power initiatives, find
out who is (or is not) involved in these dis-
cussions and identify what are considered the
most central elements of changing power rela-
tions between Northern and Southern NGOs.
A total of 33 semi-structured interviews were
carried out with NGOs and NGO networks in
Europe (12 across the United Kingdom, Neth-
erlands, Belgium, and Germany), Ghana (11)
and Uganda (10).
3. Three in-depth case studies of programmes
for transforming power imbalances between
Northern and Southern NGOs in Ghana (2)
and Uganda (1). These were important to
provide a ‘deep-dive’ into the processes and
outcomes of three programmes in two na-
tional contexts and to build an understanding
of these through diverse perspectives and
experiences of them from within. Within each
programme interviews were carried out at all
levels: from national leadership right down to
local partners.
The research has benefited from the advice and
guidance of a Sounding Board constituted of 30
non-academic members representing a diverse
range of organisations and countries. We are
grateful for their feedback across different stages
of this research, including on the research design,
survey instruments, and early analysis of the find-
ings. Of course any mistakes are our own.
3. Methodology
4. Creating a shared understanding 7
Localisation, Shift the power, locally-led develop-
ment and decolonisation are all buzzwords used
to speak of ways to address power inequalities
within the global aid system. The global aid system
refers to the framework of policies, regulations, in-
stitutions, and practices, through which assistance
and resources are provided to individuals, com-
munities, and countries. This framework, which is
established by the system’s most powerful actors,
defines widely shared policy goals and priorities,
how decisions are made, resources are distributed,
and actors are held accountable. A wide range of
actors, including governments, international or-
ganisations and NGOs, operate within the bound-
aries of the aid system. Their interaction is highly
structured and follows the roles, behaviours and
interaction-patterns specified by the system (see
Elbers, 2012).
Within the global aid system, the terms of localisa-
tion, shift the power, locally-led development and
decolonisation are often used interchangeably. Yet
they all have different roots and different meanings
attached to these that should not be overlooked
(see also Matthews, 2022). Localisation emerged
within the domain of humanitarian action to refer
to the objective of involving local actors more in
decision-making. Localisation (like Southern lead-
ership and local ownership) is thus a construct
that problematically defines individuals and organ-
isations in terms of their unequal relations with
outsiders, rather than their own agency and per-
spectives on their roles (Van Wessel et al., 2023).
Locally-led development, whilst still rooted in the
aid system, refers to Northern actors’ aims and
strategies to support recipients of aid taking more
control over development agendas and actions.
Locally-led development, while maintaining giv-
er-recipient structures, thus expresses an aim for
a more fundamental change in roles for actors in
development (see e.g., Bond, 2021).
The #Shiftthepower movement started out from
community philanthropy (with the Global Fund
for Community Foundations in a leading role)
and questions the centrality of NNGOs in devel-
opment. This movement argues the need for and
feasibility of local actors shaping development
more independently, working with locally-raised
funding that can help influence the power dynam-
ics present within international relationships (cf.
Hodgson 2020).
Decolonisation, in turn, reflects the ongoing bat-
tle for more fundamental transformation. This
demand calls out the discrimination and injus-
tice against people in and from the Global South
that marginalises them and their knowledge and
perspectives through, for example, assumptions
about who and what knowledges and skills are
more or less worthy, and practices of language and
behaviour through which they are expressed and
reproduced. Decolonisation is thus about reclaim-
ing dignity and self-determination (see e.g. Bagu-
ios et al., 2021).
In this report, we explore the usage of these terms
but refrain from committing to any of them. Giv-
en their often casual and simultaneous usage in
practice, we prefer rather to examine the aims,
priorities and actions that underpins collective
movement in these directions. However, given the
differences in starting point and emphasis, we will
return to the question of terminology in our con-
cluding section, in light of the findings that shed
light on what matters to whom, and what is being
done.
4. Creating a shared understanding
8 Where do we go from here?
Respondents were asked whether they were fa-
miliar with the key terms at the heart of current
discussions and debates in NGO sectors globally:
localisation, locally-led development, shift the
power, and decolonisation (see Figure 1).
Unsurprisingly these are widely recognised: only
3.6% of respondents were unfamiliar with any
of these four central terms in the debate about
power imbalances between the Global North and
Global South.
Across all respondents ‘locally-led development’
was the most commonly recognised term, being
familiar to over 92.4% of respondents. Familiar-
ity with the term ‘Shift the Power’, a movement
coined by the Southern-based Global Fund for
Community Foundations was the least familiar for
NNGO respondents, though still high at 82.3%.
Familiarity with all four terms is higher among
respondents from NNGOs.
Among SNGO respondents the most familiar
terms are ‘locally-led development’ (85.1% re-
spondents) and ‘localisation’ (67.8%), terms that
have been coined by NNGOs and donors looking
to move power and resources to the Global South.
More surprisingly, less than half (45.7%) of SNGO
respondents are familiar with ‘Shift the Power’ ter-
minology. In fact, while the numbers remain low
for both categories of respondents, more NNGO
than SNGO respondents primarily use the term
‘shift the power’.
This is perhaps indicative of the contexts in which
respondents are hearing about and taking action
in these areas: within their direct operational re-
lationships and partnerships rather than as part
of the broader Southern-driven demand for power
shifts in this direction that has been so influential
on Northern agendas and action.
5. What’s the problem?
Do the terms used matter?
Main findings
• NNGOs and SNGOs use phrases often heard in the debate about unequal power relations
interchangeably (locally-led development, localisation,Shiftthepower and decolonisation), with
none of them being dominant.
• The vast majority of NNGOs and SNGOs regard power relations between NGOs in North and
South as very unequal, yet feel their own relations are an exception to this rule.
• Control over funding is the main source of hierarchy between NNGOs and SNGOs – and also the
foundation for inequalities in information, access to other actors and decision-making.
• SNGOs experience colonial attitudes with NNGOs, and a lack of will to transform their
relationships.
5. What’s the problem? 9
Although these four terms have much in com-
mon, as just discussed, they are not the same
(Matthews, 2022). It is interesting, then, that a
relatively large proportion of respondents (47.3%
of NNGOs and 30.7% of SNGOs) uses a mix of
these terms when talking about power relations
between NNGOs and SNGOs (see Figure 2).
Among respondents using one term in preponder-
ance, ‘locally-led development’ is the most pop-
ular for SNGOs, with 33.2% respondents using
this term. ‘Localisation’ is more commonly used
among NNGO respondents that prefer a singular
terminology: around 17.7% of NNGOs signalled
their use of this term alongside around 11.8%
who use ‘locally-led development’.
It is pertinent to reflect here on the directionality
of these terms in light of these findings. Implicit
in the term ‘localisation’ favoured by NNGOs is
a retention of power and resources at the apex,
while recognising the importance of decentralising
some of this to SNGOs. In contrast, ‘locally-led de-
velopment’ requires a shift that concentrates power
at the local-level.
Interviews revealed that debates about what terms
to use and what each means are very much alive
in some organisations, but less so in others. Most
NNGOs indicated that they are familiar with ‘lo-
calisation’ but prefer not to use it because of its
technocratic connotation and limited attention
to structural issues such as racism, colonialism
and the broader aid framework that sustain power
imbalances. Some NNGOs navigate terminology
carefully trying to avoid misuse of terms. Others
are less critical. As one NNGO interviewee ex-
plained, changing the terminology on their web-
site from localisation to locally-led development
was not the outcome of an internal reflection, but
an attempt to use the appropriate buzzword of
the day (interview NNGO, 25-11-2022).
Twenty-seven respondents indicated that they do
not use any of these four terms in thinking and
taking action around power relations. These can
be divided into two groups. The first (covering 12
NNGOs and eight SNGOs) uses different terms
ranging from ‘critical thinking’, ‘autonomy’ and
‘Southern leadership’ in juxtaposition with terms
such as ‘inequity’, ‘donor-imposed project ideas’
Locally-led
development
Shift-the-Power Localisation Decolonisation Not familiar with
any of these terms
Don’t know
Figure 1 | Familiarity with central terms, with division between NNGOs and SNGOs, in % (n=445).
100,0
90,0
80,0
70,0
60,0
50.0
40,0
30,0
20,0
10,0
0,0
Source: Own calculations based on the survey, multiple answers were allowed.
NNGOs (n=237) SNGOs (n=205)
10 Where do we go from here?
There are power imbalances between
NGOs in the Global North and South …
but it’s not such a problem in our own
backyard
Our focus may be on the ways and extent to which
NGOs around the world are taking action to re-
duce power imbalances across the Global North
and South, but the validity of this focus is only
established if we know that organisations believe
there is a problem with power imbalances in the
first place. Respondents were asked about their
perception of the relations between NGOs in the
Global North and South, both generally and with-
in the specific confines of their own relationships.
These distinctions matter, with respondents
displaying significant differences in perceptions
depending on whether respondents are talking
about such relations in general or within their own
relationship(s). Figures 3a and 3b both illustrate a
10-point scale from very unequal to very equal. In
Figure 3a we see that when respondents are asked
to speak from a general perspective, the vast ma-
jority of NNGOs (77.2%) and SNGOs (71.4%) see
these relationships firmly on the side of unequal
(we categorise scores 1 to 3 as ‘very’ unequal).
Only 3.8% (NNGOs) and 3.4% (SNGOs) think
there is significant equality to these relationships
and we can see the line drops steeply in both
Understanding power imbalances between NNGOs
and SNGOs
50.0
40,0
30,0
20,0
10,0
0,0
Locally-led
development
Shift-the-Power Localisation Decolonisation A mix of
these terms
Don’t know None of these
Figure 2 | Terminology used in thinking and action on power relations between Northen and Southern
NGOs (n=442).
Source: Own calculations based on the survey.
NNGOs (n=237) SNGOs (n=205)
and ‘power dynamics’. For these actors, discus-
sions are being held, albeit outside of the sector’s
dominant terminologies.
The second smaller group of seven respondents
(four NNGOs and three SNGOs) revealed that
they do not talk about power relations at all. That
respondents might regret not talking about it, as
clear from one of the surveyed NNGOs stating ‘to
be honest and sadly, this discussion does not occur at
all’. A similar feeling was expressed in interviews
with small NNGO network organisations who ex-
pressed regret not actively discussing these terms
as they are too preoccupied with day-to-day prac-
ticalities (Interviews small NNGO network, 13-10-
2022; 14-10-2022).
The next section discusses whether respondents
believe that there is a power problem in the rela-
tionship between NNGOs and SNGOs and what
respondents deem the main sources of power im-
balances to be. The section that follows then links
these findings to the terminology discussions
described above.
5. What’s the problem? 11
•
Very
unequal
•
2
•
3
•
4
•
5
•
6
•
7
•
8
•
9
•
Very
equal
50.0
45,0
40,0
35,0
30,0
25,0
20,0
15,0
10,0
5,0
0,0
A. Development organisations in the Global North
and Global South (n=443).
50.0
45,0
40,0
35,0
30,0
25,0
20,0
15,0
10,0
5,0
0,0
B. Own organisation and its partner(s) (n=337).
•
Very
unequal
•
2
•
3
•
4
•
5
•
6
•
7
•
8
•
9
•
Very
equal
Figure 3 | Perceived (in)equality of power relations between …, with division between NNGOs and
SNGOs, in % (n=443 and n=337).
Source: Own calculations based on the survey.
A NNGOs (n=237) SNGOs (n=206) B NNGOs (n=149) SNGOs (n=188)
groups from Score 4 upwards. These lines illus-
trate that most SNGOs and NNGOs perceive rela-
tionships to be far from equal.
However, a marked difference is apparent when re-
spondents are asked about the (in)equality of their
own relationships with their counterparts in the
opposite geography (Figure 3b). This shift is partic-
ularly marked for NNGOs: the number of NNGO
respondents that think they operate within very
unequal relationships is only 31.4% in comparison
with the 77.2% who thought relationships are very
unequal, on average. We see this same drop for re-
spondents in SNGOs, but to a lesser extent: while
71.4% SNGO respondents see relationships as
‘very unequal’ more generally, this figure dropped
to 45.6% when speaking about their own particular
working relationships.
These findings reveal a mismatch in perceptions
across the Global North and South: only one-
third of NNGOs believe they work through ‘very’
unequal relationships, while nearly half of SNGO
respondents report their feelings of significant in-
equality in their partnerships.
In both the Global North and South and looking
at their own working relationships, the number
of respondents perceiving these as (very) equal
(scores 8 to 10) increases to 12.2% and 12.1%,
respectively. So, in both groups, respondents think
that their partnerships are working more equitably
than most.
Perhaps in a sector where action on this front is
relatively recent and sparse and where respondents
are thinking, talking about and taking action upon
these inequalities, they see themselves as ahead of
the curve. Indeed, our case study interviews in the
Global North suggested this may be the case: be-
cause organisations are often unaware of other ini-
tiatives and efforts in this area beyond the biggest
NGOs it can be logical for organisations to assume
that they are doing better than others if they are
doing things, no matter how small (Interviews NN-
GOs, 13-10-2022; 25-10-2022; 18-11-2022).
12 Where do we go from here?
Those who hold the money,
hold the power
Before exploring actions undertaken to tackle
power imbalances, we first look at what respon-
dents identify as the ‘main drivers’ of inequalities
across NGOs in the North and South and ‘what
they would like to see change’ in these relation-
ships. The survey gave respondents a chance, in
their own words, to mention three primary sourc-
es of power imbalances between Global North
and Global South development organisations. The
research team categorised their answers into 17
themes (Figure 4).
Financial resources – money and the terms of
access to it – were mentioned near universally by
respondents in both North and South. Central
here was the simple fact that ‘most financial re-
5. What’s the problem? 13
sources come from the North’. Since ‘with money
still comes power’, this is where other forms of
power are concentrated. This financial power is
maintained through conditionalities on how funds
are spent, a lack of direct funding for SNGOs,
an unwillingness among NNGOs to share the
over-head costs of Southern counterparts and the
barriers to entry that SNGOs face to accessing
funding on better terms.5
In the words of one SNGO respondent: ‘Glob-
al North are donors to the Global South – they
give them the money and control how and where
it is spent’. Consequently, NNGOs and SNGOs
(around 26%) report that Northern NGOs control
the international development agenda by deciding
priorities. 23% of NNGOs also state that setting
the sector’s standards by the Global North drives
power imbalances, a point also mentioned by
10% of SNGOs.
These dynamics are also reflected in our broader
interviews, which highlighted that financial rela-
tions are the most telling indicator of how power
is distributed – ‘money is power’ – with donors
and NNGOs allocating money to certain priori-
ties and approaches. Consequently, for SNGOs
partnerships start off on unequal terms, with
their only option to express their interest in being
the implementing partner of an already thought-
Language
Not investing in local capacity
Access to information
Not letting go of power by North
Focus on short term results
Key human resources dominated by North
Lack of trust
Different treatment staff N and S
South treated as subcontractors
Continuing history of dependency
Access to policy makers etc.
Northern standards
Cultural/ideological disparities
Difference in capacity
Racism / eurocentrism / colonial attitudes
Agenda set and decided by North
Funding and resources
•
0,0
•
10,0
•
20,0
•
30,0
•
40,0
•
50,0
•
60,0
•
70,0
•
80,0
•
90,0
Figure 4 | Main sources of power asymmetries between Global North and Global South development
organisations, with division between NNGOs and SNGOs, in % (n=342).
Source: Own calculations based on the survey.
NNGOs (n=155) SNGOs (n=187)
14 Where do we go from here?
out project by NNGOs. One NNGO respondent
pointed out that when ‘money moves from your
account to someone else’s, you are the donor. So,
it would imbalance the relationship’. (Interview
NNGO, 25-11-2022). Finance is thus central to
changing power relations. ‘Handing over more fi-
nancial control, much more decision-making about
how that money is going to be spent, that’s funda-
mental’ according to a small NNGO network (In-
terview small NNGO network, 14-10-2022).
WWThe control of finance and high-level deci-
sion-making also foster other forms of power
to be concentrated in the Global North. For in-
stance, access to policymakers and information
are both significant sources of power imbalances.
Having more information can result in a clearer
understanding of the initiatives and the need to
take action. Interview respondents observed that
the dominance of the NNGOs in leading these
agendas is partly attributed to greater access to
information relating to current global trends and
development paradigms as well as to campaigns
around relations between development actors in
the North and South.
Having this kind of information gives actors
the impetus to initiate actions towards shifting
power relations. Some interviewees mentioned
the need to inform their Southern partners of
new (Northern) developments in the sector, and
Southern NGOs often noted not being aware of
their existing power to amend partnerships (Inter-
views NNGO, 11-11-2022; 21-11-2022; Interview
SNGO, 28-11-2022). Having this kind of informa-
tion is a source of power in and of itself. Without
the same level of access SNGOs are left to play
a ‘following’ role, taking the lead from Northern
NGOs. Findings in Figure 6 illustrate these dy-
namics well.
Although most SNGOs are eager to participate in
decision-making, both NNGOs and SNGOs per-
ceive an unequal capacity for SNGOs to take the
lead. As limited resources are controlled by SN-
GOs, they struggle to take the appropriate action
or to participate in the debate. It was noted during
an NNGO interview that ‘just the simple fact that
the capacity of local organisations is far lower than
NNGOs means they have difficulty making local-
isation effective’. (Interview NNGO, 2-12-2022).
Others in the survey attribute power imbalances
to cultural and ideological disparities and a lack of
trust (Figure 4).
The continuing history of (neo)colonialism, struc-
tural racism, and eurocentrism is seen as one
of the root causes of power imbalances by both
NNGOs and SNGOs (both around 22%). As one
NNGO respondent explained, ‘The system of in-
ternational cooperation has replicated colonial struc-
tures, hierarchies and mindsets’. (Interview SNGO,
24-11-2022). The financial wealth of the Global
North is a result of its (historic) extractive activi-
ties in the Global South, leading the latter to per-
petually depend on the generosity of the former.
Diverse interviews made it abundantly clear that
colonialism and neo-colonialism still dominate
power relations. An NNGO interviewee stated
that power relations in international development
are ‘(...) linked to international relations, they are
linked to history, they are linked to politics, they are
linked to lots of other things’ (Interview NNGO, 11-
11-2022).
Another NNGO interviewee outed their frustration
that colonial history and decolonisation do not
only concern former colonial powers. Even coun-
tries that did not have colonies either profited
from colonialism indirectly or were a victim of it,
regardless of their status as colonisers (Interview
NNGO, 25-11-2022).
Another NNGO respondent noted that the inter-
national development sector suffers from a ‘colo-
nial hangover in terms of views around decision-mak-
ing and capacity to deliver’. (Interview NNGO,
11-11-2022). Similarly, an interviewee pointed
out that there is still a tendency to view SNGOs
as ‘really incapable of everything’. (Interview small
NNGO network, 13-10-2022).
5. What’s the problem? 15
Similarly, SNGOs report that they remain treated
as ‘lesser’ by their Northern colleagues, often
taking the role of subcontractor following instruc-
tions by Northern partners and colleagues who
hold key positions within the sector and within
organisations. An SNGO interviewee explained
NNGOs think ‘they need to explain things to us. But
this is not true’. (Interview SNGO, 28-11-2022).
One SNGO went as far as saying that:
‘The INGO industrial complex is facing a
little bit of a crisis itself because a number
of NGOs in the Global South are starting to
ask different questions. What is the role of
the international NGO? Is the international
NGO a middleman? Could we have resources
flow from the North to the South without a
certain INGO? Many have even felt that no,
the INGO is a mirror of colonialism…[M]any
would argue that the international NGO is
the remaining rope tying us to the colonial
ship’.
Interview SNGO, 20-06-2022
Lastly, the reluctance of Northern actors – includ-
ing donors and NNGOs – to share power is also
highlighted as prolonging power imbalances. For
instance, there is still low investment in local ca-
pacity and a high fixation on short-term results in
the Global South. Interviewees from SNGOs de-
cried some of the conditionalities tied to aid espe-
cially relating to certain levels of human resourc-
es. Some bilateral donors insist on having project
team leads of the Chief of Party to be particular
individuals of their choice, in most cases from the
donor countries (Interview SNGO, 3-10-2022).
This can be interpreted as ‘colonial hangover’ and
constrains efforts at reducing power differentials.
Other respondents suggested that caution must
be taken by SNGOs to ensure that they don’t sud-
denly sever relations with NNGOs before they are
able to sustain themselves financially and techni-
cally. Thus, radical and confrontation tactics pre-
ferred by some SNGOs were discouraged by those
holding this view:
‘We still need the resources that are coming
from the west and in some cases, we still
need some level of expertise that comes from
them… I feel that if we are too confrontation-
al, then we are likely to threaten the resourc-
es’.
Interview SNGO, 19-10-2022
5 Such conditionalities and practices have severe impact
upon SNGOs, illustrated vividly by Humentum (2022) in
revealing the ‘starvation cycle’ that is imposed upon them
as a result.
16 Where do we go from here?
Our survey asked respondents whether they had
discussed actions to tackle inequalities internally
within their own organisations and externally with
their counterparts in the North or South. As Fig-
ure 5 shows, the majority of respondents in both
groups have indeed done both. This is particularly
the case for NNGOs, for whom over 80% and
75% of respondents highlighted that they had car-
ried out such discussions internally and with their
partners, respectively. In contrast, nearly one-third
of SNGOs have not discussed any such actions
internally or with their partners.
NNGOs saw themselves as the more likely actor
that started these discussions within the partner-
ship (see Figure 6). Nearly 70% of NNGOs report-
ed that they had initiated discussions about such
actions with their SNGO partners. For NNGOs
there were very few examples in which their South-
ern counterpart started the discussion. In con-
6. What actions are being
undertaken to close the gap?
Main findings
• Discussions about unequal power relations are prevalent, yet mostly initiated by NNGOs.
• Most NNGOs (75%) and SNGOs (58%) have taken action to address power inequalities.
• Actions in the programming area consist principally of partner-involvement and co-creation in
programme design and accountability requirements. Partner-led programming is also mentioned
by both SNGOs and NNGOs - although substantially less often.
• In contrast, partners taking the lead in policy decision-making is only mentioned by a handful of
NNGOs and not at all by SNGOs. In this policy area, most actions remain limited to discussions
or consultations.
• In governance, actions regarding staff diversity are most prominent. Changes that decentralise
power within the organisation or revolve around creating new decision-making bodies are less
common.
• Actions regarding funding involve primarily support and capacity building for (local) fundraising.
Changes in the funding structure or funding conditionalities are rare.
• In the area of language, actions are limited to awareness raising/dialogue and refraining from
using certain phrases and NNGOs indicate to have decolonised their (external) communication.
• While both NNGOs and SNGOs mention many forms of future actions needed, SNGOs call for
direct access to institutional donors (direct funding) while NNGOs emphasise a variety of changes
within their individual relations with Southern organisations.
Mapping actions to redistribute power
6. What actions are bring undertaken to close the gap? 17
trast, over one-third of SNGOs reported that they
had been the initiator of these discussions and
nearly 45% that it had been a mutual initiative.
Just under 20% (18.4%) highlighted their North-
ern counterpart had started the discussion.
One important finding that emerged from our
interviews was the need for a critical mass of
supporters of actions to tackle power imbalances
within organisations. NGOs are not homogenous
organisations. Within each organisation there are
those who advocate for change – the ‘activists
within’ – and those who do not. Boards are power-
ful decision-making bodies but are often brought
late into discussions. Moreover, boards tend to
be risk adverse, meaning that those with power to
make change are reluctant to be early adopters.
As a consequence, many NNGOs are waiting for
others to lead the change (Interview NNGO net-
work, 9-11-2022; Interview NNGO, 11-11-2022).
Interviews highlighted another influence: that de-
mand for change not only originates from within
organisations but comes from all sides. Govern-
ment ministries, through political pressure, come
up with new policies that demand change within
NNGOs and their relationship with SNGOs. One
Ugandan key informant illustrated this claim sug-
gesting that:
‘Trump’s government under USAID started
what we call a journey to self-reliance and
they started prioritising local development.
For Obama’s they put numbers down and
said at least 30% of Aid going to the country
must go to local organisations’.
Interview SNGO, 26-10-2022
NNGOs encourage each other to talk about power
and address the issue. Finally, Southern NGOs
also demand change. As one interviewee stated:
partners in the Global South are ‘ringing the alarm
bell that things have to change’. (Interview NNGO
network, 10-11-2022). Within the humanitarian
sector in Uganda, some of the critical questions
being asked by SNGOs include: What is it that
international organisations are doing that the
local ones cannot do? why are you giving money
to an international organisation to do something
the local organisation can do better? (Interview
SNGO, 26-10-2022).
90,0
80,0
70,0
60,0
50.0
40,0
30,0
20,0
10,0
0,0
Yes No Don’t know
90,0
80,0
70,0
60,0
50.0
40,0
30,0
20,0
10,0
0,0
Yes No Don’t know
NNGOs (n=189)
Internally
NNGOs (n=186)
With NGO partners
SNGOs (n=154)
Internally
SNGOs (n=150)
With NGO partners
Figure 5 | Have actions aimed at tackling power imbalances been discussed internally and with NGO part-
ners?, with division between NNGOs and SNGOs, in % (n=343 and n=336).
Source: own calculations based on the survey
18 Where do we go from here?
NGOs undertake actions
Following on from discussions about actions to
redistribute power in relationships spanning the
Global North and South is to undertake specific
actions in this direction. For both NNGOs and
SNGOs the majority of respondents report having
undertaken such actions (Figure 7).
Building from Figure 7 the picture emerges that
most organisations who engage in discussion
also undertake some form of action. Of the 82%
of Northern NGOs that have discussed changing
power relations with their partners, 75% have un-
dertaken actions to do this. The same percentage
of Southern NGOs that reported talking about
power imbalances internally (58.4%, n=154) and
with their NGO partners (58.7%, n=150) also re-
port taking action against them (58.3%, n=151).
But Figure 7 also highlights that the number of
organisations taking action to change power
relations is (substantially) lower among SNGOs.
Around one-third of SNGOs report that they have
not undertaken actions to change power relations,
in comparison with just over 10% of NNGOs. The
survey also explores what types of activities are
undertaken by SNGOs and NNGOs. Respondents
were asked about activities to address power
imbalances across five core areas in which these
power imbalances occur (see Table 1).
All five of these areas are important sites of action
for NGOs in both the Global North and South
(Figure 8). Within most of these areas, (well) over
half of SNGOs and NNGOs in the survey are
acting to tackle power imbalances. The only real
exception to this rule concerns the actions of SN-
GOs in the area of ‘colonial language and stereo-
typing’. This is a strong action area for NNGOs,
but less so for SNGOs, among whom only 26%
of respondents reported taking action here. This
is perhaps unsurprising because while SNGOs
might see the need to ‘demand’ action from their
Northern counterparts in terms of how NNGOs
represent their Southern counterparts to Northern
audiences, it is likely that they have less ‘work’
to do in this realm themselves. According to a
Northern interviewee, small NNGOs also think
they have less ‘work’ to do to in the area of ‘colo-
nial language and stereotyping’ as their relationship
with SNGOs is often built on trust and friendship’.
(Interview small NNGO network, 13-10-2022).
What, then, are the specific actions in these five
areas that NNGOs and SNGOs take? The survey
dug below these five categories by asking respon-
dents to specify the activities they were undertak-
ing in each area. Across each of these we analysed
the open-ended answers to arrive at a categorisa-
tion.
70,0
60,0
50.0
40,0
30,0
20,0
10,0
0,0
We did Our partner
did
It was a
mutual
initiative
Don’t know
Figure 6 | Who initiated the discussion about ac-
tions with NGO partners?, with division between
NNGOs and SNGOs, in % (n=226).
Source: Own calculations based on the survey.
NNGOs (n=139) SNGOs (n=87)
80,0
60,0
40,0
20,0
0,0
NNGOs (n=197) SNGOs (n=151)
Yes No Don’t know
Figure 7 | Undertaken any actions to change po-
wer relations, with division between NNGOs and
SNGOs, in % (n=348).
Source: Own calculations based on the survey.
6. What actions are bring undertaken to close the gap? 19
Area Explanation
1 Unequal decision-making in
policy
The policy area refers to actions targeting the guiding principles as a standard
for shaping decisions and actions about all recurring activities. Hence, the
policy area has a broader scope than the programme level, where activities are
specific and time-bound. The policy level, for example, deals with how NGOs
are supposed to interact (partnership policy) and report (accountability poli-
cy).
2 Unequal decision-making in
programming
The programme level refers to actions targeting decisions related to specific
interventions. Hence, the scope of programme area actions is more limited
than those targeting the policy area. The programme level, for example, deals
with the design of interventions or who is involved.
3 Unequal decision-making in
internal governance
The governance level refers to actions targeting the organisational structure
that shapes how decisions are made and who is involved in making them. In
addition, it includes actions aimed at ensuring and safeguarding staff diversity.
Examples include board composition and hiring policies.
4 Financial dependence and
restricted funding
The funding level refers to actions shaping the sources and nature of funding
and the conditions under which it is provided. These are primarily actions
seeking to influence one-sided funding dependency. Examples relate to the
diversification of income and strengthening of fundraising capacity.
5Colonial language and
stereotyping
The language level refers to actions promoting the intentional use of a vocabu-
lary and images that reflect valuing partners and strengthening partner equal-
ity, internally and externally. In doing so, communication that depicts partners
in an unequal light is addressed. Examples relate to awareness raising about
the impact of language and imagery and using different ways of communica-
tion.
Table 1 | Core areas of power imbalance.
Colonial language and stereotyping
Financial dependence and restricted funding
Unequal decision-making in internal governance
Unequal decision-making in programming
Unequal decision-making in policy
•
0,0
•
10,0
•
20,0
•
30,0
•
40,0
•
50,0
•
60,0
•
70,0
•
80,0
Figure 8 | Areas which actions touch upon, divided between NNGOs and SNGOs, in %.
NNGOs SNGOs
Note: Total n for each area for SNGOs and NNGOs are as follows: 1. Policy – NNGOs (n=135); SNGO (n=86); 2. Programme –
NNGOs (n=128); SNGO (n=76); 3. Governance – NNGOs (n=124); SNGO (n=73); 4. Funding – NNGOs (n=124); SNGO (n=73);
and 5. Language – NNGOs (n=124); SNGO (n=70).
Source: Own calculations based on the survey, multiple answers were allowed.
20 Where do we go from here?
As Appendix 3 and 4 detail, we carried out in-depth case studies in Ghana and Uganda to give a
‘deep-dive’ into some of these areas of action, to explore in more detail what is being done to ad-
dress some of these power imbalances, why these actions have been designed as such, and what
the tentative outcomes or implications of these actions have been. A detailed write up of these case
studies can be found in Appendices 3 and 4.
In Ghana we explored two programmes, across a total of 12 Key Informant Interviews and a review
of programme documentation, progress and performance reviews and evaluations.
The first programme in Ghana is the Giving for Change programme led by STAR Ghana Foundation
and West African Civil Society Institute (WACSI) which seeks to strengthen the domestic resource
mobilisation capacity of Ghanaian NGOs through community philanthropy to enhance local owner-
ship and strengthening the ability of communities to claim entitlements. The programme also seeks
to create the enabling environment for local philanthropy and to overcome the inherent power
dynamics in the international development ecosystem by promoting a more equitable relationship
between organisations in the Global North and South.
As part of a broader alliance across eight countries (i.e., Brazil, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Ken-
ya, Mozambique, Palestine and Uganda) (funded by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs), we can
identify that this programme seeks to tackle power imbalances across funding, policy and program-
ming, through the promotion of community philanthropy, a growing international movement led by
the Global Fund for Community Foundations.
The second programme in Ghana is the Women’s Voice and Leadership (WVL) programme, fund-
ed by Global Affairs Canada and led by Plan International (Canada and Ghana) and two Ghanaian
NGOs, NETRIGHT and WiLDAF supporting other local NGOs and WROs. This focuses on sup-
porting the capacity and activities of Women’s Rights Organisations (WROs) and movements in
Ghana through three core objectives, namely: 1) improving the management, sustainability, perfor-
mance and innovation of local WROs, 2) enhancing the delivery of quality services and advocacy by
WROs and 3) enhancing collaboration and collective action of local WROs. Thus, we can see efforts
seeking to address policy imbalances in policy, programming, and governance with capacity-building
viewed as a key mechanism for achieving these.
In Uganda we explored the Empowering Local and National Humanitarian Actors (ELNHA) pro-
gramme led by Oxfam, which sought to give local humanitarian partners a lead role in humani-
tarian response. ELNHA was designed to test whether local and national organisations could be
frontline responders in humanitarian contexts in place of the usual international humanitarian
responders. It had three core components, namely 1) capacity strengthening of local actors, 2) am-
plifying the voice of local actors in decision-making spaces and 3) creating space for them to act, in-
cluding through better forms and terms of funding. Taking place within the context of their Charter for
Change pledge, this programme sought to tackle power imbalances across multiple dimensions: in
policy, programming and funding.
Box 1 | What areas of action do our case studies focus upon?
6. What actions are bring undertaken to close the gap? 21
From consultation to co-creation for
SNGOs…but less so for policies
In the area of policy seven types of actions
emerged from these responses (see Figure 9). For
NNGOs, consulting Southern partners in their
policy-making (27%) is the most common ac-
tion. Fewer (15%) went one step further to move
towards equal decision-making. An even smaller
group of NNGOs (4%) states that partners lead in
policy decision-making.
A few SNGOs (8.5%) also reported some
progress in greater consultation or equal deci-
sion-making power in policy, but none reported
being able to take the lead in these areas. For
them the promotion of policy-level conversations
around power and (equal) partnerships is the
most frequently engaged with action (19%).
Roughly 20% of NNGOs and 9% of SNGOs have
developed a new partnership policy, which accord-
ing to a respondent from an NNGO, is essential
because ‘[it] helps to re-define the added value of
the organisation, what should it do in a more decol-
onised way of working, what should it let of go off,
and how to support partner organisations to realise
the change’.
Just under 10% of SNGOs report activities in
training and capacity strengthening, which was
one of the core foci of the ELNHA case study in
Uganda and the WVL case study in Ghana. The
ELNHA case study reveals the linkages between
capacity strengthening and the professionalisation
of humanitarian response (See Box 2).
Actions in the area of programmes and program-
ming were the most prominent across all those
initiatives mentioned by respondents (Figure 10).
From open-ended responses, we distinguish be-
tween six types of actions in this area. Of these,
consultation in programming and (one step fur-
ther) co-creation are mentioned most frequently.
For example, a respondent from an NNGO said:
‘In individual projects there is experimenta-
tion with different ways of co-creation, trying
to consistently improve how programming is
developed and how the involvement, initiative
and needs from [Southern] partners can shape
the programming fundamentally’.
Mutual Accountability
Promoting conversations around power/
decolonization/equal partnerships
Training and capacity strengthening of partners
Partnership policy initiated or revised
Partners are consulted in policy making
Move towards equal decision-making power/
joint decision making
Partners lead policy decision-making
•
0,0
•
5,0
•
10,0
•
15,0
•
20,0
•
25,0
•
30,0
•
35,0
•
40,0
•
45,0
•
50,0
Figure 9 | Actions undertaken in the area of policy, divided between NNGOs and SNGOs, in % (n=122).
Source: Own calculations based on the survey.
NNGOs (n=75) SNGOs (n=47)
22 Where do we go from here?
Programming is one area in which NNGOs have
moved away from ‘partner consultation’ towards
deeper engagement from Southern counterparts
in these areas. Only 10% NNGOs report that
they ‘consulted’ their Southern counterparts, in
comparison with 44% of NNGOs reporting that
they co-created programme strategy and design.
The deepest form of action here is moving to-
wards partner-led strategy and design. An SNGO
respondent noted, ‘[we started] setting the agenda
based on our context; aligning monitoring and re-
porting to our strategy’. However, actions taken in
this category are lower, at 12.5% of NNGOs and
4.1% of SNGOs. Interestingly, the NNGOs in
the sample mentioned partner-led programming
more often than consultation.
The survey found that for 20% of NNGOs and
14% of SNGOs, co-deciding on the nature of pro-
grammatic accountability requirements is crucial.
For example, a Global North respondent noted,
‘Partners from the Global South often determine
when monitoring and evaluation are conducted.
Some retain the money and only invite us to join
them in the evaluation on dates conducive to them.
They also determine the reporting templates and the
kind of information to report on’.
Figure 10 | Actions in the programme area, distinguishing between NNGOs and SNGOs, in % (n=129).
Strengthening capacity of partners
Acknowledge Southern knowledge & priorities
Partners co-decide on accountability requirements
Partner led programming
Partner consulted in programme strategy
Partners involvement/co-creation in programme
design and strategy
•
0,0
•
5,0
•
10,0
•
15,0
•
20,0
•
25,0
•
30,0
•
35,0
•
40,0
•
45,0
•
50,0
Source: Own calculations based on the survey.
NNGOs (n=80) SNGOs (n=49)
Transferring power from HQ to country offices
Creating advisory/decision-making bodies
Nationalising country offices
Staff diversity at governance/management level
Policies for diversity, inclusion & safeguarding
Staff diversity
•
0,0
•
5,0
•
10,0
•
15,0
•
20,0
•
25,0
•
30,0
•
35,0
•
40,0
•
45,0
•
50,0
Figure 11 | Actions undertaken in the area of governance, with division between NNGOs and SNGOs, in
% (n=101).
Source: Own calculations based on the survey.
NNGOs (n=71) SNGOs (n=30)
6. What actions are bring undertaken to close the gap? 23
In Uganda, capacity strengthening of local actors was a central element of the ELNHA project. The
context in which this took place was the need for local organisations to become credible organisations
at the frontline of the humanitarian response in Northern Uganda that would be accepted by interna-
tional organisations as viable partners.
Prior to the project perceptions were that local organisations had limited capacities around core
humanitarian standards, governance and management structures, organisational policies, strategic
plans, and weak controls, all of which undermined their ability to take a leading role in the design and
implementation of humanitarian responses.
Oxfam and ELNHA did not come with predetermined intervention activities for partners; instead
Humanitarian Country Capacity Assessments were utilised to identify the ‘capacity gaps’ of each
organisation, then providing partners with training in different aspects such as governance and man-
agement, resource mobilisation, book-keeping and improved accounting systems. These aspects were
critical in allaying the fears that International NGOs and funders had with regards to providing direct
funding to Southern organisations due to weak accounting systems and practices.
This was an intensive process with significant and long-term investment from Oxfam and their train-
ing partners and consultants. As one local partner explained, ‘Oxfam had to bring two of their staff to sit
[with us] for like 2 years as a way of mentoring to make sure we implement projects similar to how Oxfam
was doing’. In one of the refugee camps, Oxfam handed its area of jurisdiction to three local actors
to show the doubting NNGOs that these had capacity to expertly execute projects. Following this,
UNHCR recognised these SNGOs by giving them responsibility for specific issues including handling
gender-based violence in the refugee settlement.
Those interviewed highlighted that this shift towards localisation was not just seen as the ‘right’ thing
to do, but also fit into global neoliberal agendas of cost-effectiveness: ‘it is cheaper to deal with the
Ugandan organisations than an organisation that is going to employ seven expatriates into the coun-
try while maintaining the headquarters in Washington DC’ (Interview SNGO, 26-10-2022). The range
of capacity-strengthening initiatives carried out had clear implications on the professionalisation of
organisations.
Training provided did not just build ‘capacity’ (which was not always lacking in the first place) but
made sure that local organisations could ‘fit’ in form and function into – and was acceptable to – the
global humanitarian system. Systems of accounting, risk and monitoring were central to building
trust here. Partners reported favourably on outcomes in terms of increased recognition by donors and
INGOs, including this enabling them to secure direct funding. We must also note, in this context, the
ways in which localisation processes also lead to the NGO-isation of humanitarian response. Local
organisations formalised, expanded in size (staff) and scope (area of operation) during ELNHA. This
had implications for sustainability especially after the expiry of ELNHA funding.
Box 2 | Capacity strengthening and the NGO-isation of local responders in
Uganda
24 Where do we go from here?
While representing progress in an important area,
it is notable that progress in bringing Southern
counterparts into decisions around accountability
is much lower than in their deeper participation in
programme strategy and design.
Improving staff diversity, equity and
inclusion
In the area of governance (Figure 11), we identi-
fied six main actions. Actions aimed at improving
staff diversity within governance structures and
at the programme level were most frequently
mentioned, especially by NNGOs. In most cases,
respondents indicated their respective organi-
sations had initiated policies to ensure they em-
ployed more staff from the Global South.
Another set of actions that stands out concerns
adopting internal policies to promote a culture
of diversity and inclusion in the organisation, in-
cluding specific policies for safeguarding. Many
respondents noted that their respective organisa-
tions had installed specific working groups (an-
ti-racism-groups, diversity and inclusion groups
etc.) for this purpose. Roughly 12% of the activi-
ties mentioned by NNGOs (7% by SNGOs) were
about installing advisory and/or decision-making
bodies to promote Southern perspectives and pri-
orities. A Global North respondent explained:
The WVL Project in Ghana has contributed to some changes at the governance level (with WROs
being involved in all levels of the governance structure of the project, including grant selection and
approval panel). Those interviewed highlighted that as part of the governance structure of the project,
the WROs are involved in the decision-making process. For instance, at the Project Steering Commit-
tee, which is the highest decision-making level, two national NGOs and networks – NETRIGHT and
WiLDAF – have representatives who serve as the Chair and Co-Chair of the Project Steering Commit-
tee. They lead the entire process of the implementation of the WVL among the partners in Ghana.
In terms of grant-making processes, interviewees with respondents including representatives of Plan
International Ghana and the WVL partners indicate that the composition of the grant selection and
approval panel include the WROs’ representatives together with some expertise with the requisite
knowledge on gender transformation. The panel that includes the representatives of the WROs re-
views and approves all funding applications.
Again the interview data indicates that the Project Management Team reviews and approves all the
work plans of the implementing partners subject to the final approval by Global Affairs Canada which
is the funding institution of the project. Notwithstanding this, in essence the main decision-making
powers of the WVL are in the hands of the Project Management Team and two national NGOs – NE-
TRIGHT and WiLDAF. A key informant interviewed shared his/her experience on the involvement of
the WROs in the governance structure of the WVL project by stating that ‘the WROs have seats in
every level of the decision-making table. Even with the capacity building process in terms of specific
capacity building training they were all self-defined by them’ (Interview with NNGO, 21-04-2023).
Notable is that although the WROs input feeds into policy discussions at the donor level through the
reports they share with Global Affairs Canada, and the WROs being involved in the governance struc-
ture of the WVL project, involvement almost exclusively happens at the programmatic level rather
than the policy level with Global Affairs Canada.
Box 3 | Inclusion of local CSOs in governance structure of WVL in Ghana
6. What actions are bring undertaken to close the gap? 25
‘We have had a diversity-equity-inclusion
working group and this has been a focus area
for a couple of years now. Due to that and
the reflection on the composition of our team,
we have gotten a more diverse team over the
years, and more diverse staff has been hired in
terms of religious and/or ethnic background
[…] We have an advisory board and people
from the so-called ‘Global South’ have been
added to that board’.
Nationalising country offices and/or transferring
headquarters from the North to Southern coun-
tries was mentioned by NNGO respondents in
the survey. It was also singled out by a few SNGO
key informants. For example, one interviewee ex-
plained that:
‘The country office model has also been
criticised recently as a colonial outpost of
some sort. You are an INGO, you are based
in Netherlands [or] in Britain and you have
country offices in Uganda, Mali, Malawi,
these are like your colonial outposts and that
itself has been put under a microscope. So a
number of these INGOs are starting to think
deeply, some of them have decided to now
move from headquarters from London to
South Africa, that is the case of Action Aid.
From wherever to Nairobi, that is the case of
Oxfam’.
Interview SNGO, 20-06-2022
However, SNGO key informants were sceptical of
the transformative potential of this strategy espe-
cially if not accompanied by other actions to shift
power:
‘…Moving your headquarters doesn’t neces-
sarily mean you done anything to address the
whole program… You definitely need to think
through the software as opposed to just the
hardware of moving offices’.
Interview SNGO, 20-06-2022
It was mentioned that a number of these NNGOs
are now looking into ‘Africanising’ their human
resources through appointing Africans to Country
Director and other senior management positions
that used to be a preserve of expatriates. Others
Financial literacy & planning
More equal partner budget distribution
Southern led bidding
Feminist or participatory grant-making
Providing / receiving unconditional funding
Providing / receiving more flexible funding
Lobbying and sensitizing donors for flexible funding
Joint resource mobilisation
(Support and capacity building for) fundraising
Providing / receiving core funding
Figure 12 | Actions undertaken in the area of funding, with division between NNGOs and SNGOs, in %
(n=122).
•
0,0
•
5,0
•
10,0
•
15,0
•
20,0
•
25,0
•
30,0
•
35,0
•
40,0
Source: Own calculations based on the survey.
NNGOs (n=72) SNGOs (n=50)
26 Where do we go from here?
have moved a step further to consider the country
offices as federal entities that have an equal say
with their counterparts based in the global north
when it comes to making decisions. In the words
of one respondent, in this way, some NNGOs are
challenging the ‘governance apartheid’.
Building local fundraising capacity….
rather than increasing the volume or
improving the terms of funding flows
Initiatives to tackle power inequalities were also
heavily concentrated in the area of funding (Figure
12). Yet while the survey yielded ten specific activ-
ities to tackle power imbalances, there was less
diversity of action across these.
One, in particular, stands out for SNGOs (35%)
and NNGOs (38%): support and capacity building
for fundraising. Principally this relates to SNGOs
taking action to diversify funding sources and
NNGOs offering support in this process (mainly
through training). A Global South respondent
noted, ‘We believe that at least 40% of our budget
should come from our own resourced contribution to
shift power imbalances and bring dignity and respect
by [Northern] partners’.
Interviews show that capacity building for domes-
tic resource mobilisation is viewed as a key action
by SNGOs. This is seen as one way to respond to
restricted access to donor funding, to promote
autonomy and independence and to enhance the
financial health of local SNGOs. This is how one
Ghanaian interviewee puts it:
‘So, you will notice that in Ghana now, for
the past five years, there has been more em-
phasis on resource mobilisation but especially
looking at alternative financing. There is a
recognition that no, you cannot just be wait-
ing for donors to give you money. Maybe we
need to look at how we can mobilise from
individuals domestically, is that possible? Can
we create a profitable module, a social enter-
prise module? What about social investment,
endowment funds or community philanthro-
py? It is now that a lot of Ghanaians are
talking about these things […] We are having
these conversations because we feel it would
change the power dynamics because it would
give us more unrestricted funding, which
[gives us] more independence in specific deci-
sions that are important to us’.
interview SNGO, 03-10-2022
Capacity building for domestic resource mobil-
isation also emerged as an important action by
SNGOs to shift power. The Giving for Change
case study from Ghana highlights how STAR Gha-
na Foundation builds the capacity of local CSOs
through the Communities of Practice (CoPs) to
undertake domestic resource mobilisation (See
Box 4).
Figure 13 | Actions undertaken in the area of language, with division between NNGOs and SNGOs, in %
(n=81).
•
0,0
•
5,0
•
10,0
•
15,0
•
20,0
•
25,0
•
30,0
•
35,0
•
40,0
•
45,0
Shared principles of communication
Awareness raising/dialogue about stereotyping,
power, and language
Flexibility/multiple language
(External) communication decolonised
Refraining from certain phrases
Source: Own calculations based on the survey.NNGOs (n=65) SNGOs (n=16)
6. What actions are bring undertaken to close the gap? 27
As part of efforts by the GfC project to promote the mobilisation of domestic resources for local
CSOs, three Communities of Practice (CoPs) (i.e., a network of local CSOs) were formed with
the aim of helping the CSOs share their experiences, knowledge and lessons learnt on domestic
resource mobilisation particularly community philanthropy. The CoPs comprise of different local
CSOs that operate at the national, sub-national and local levels and play significant roles in build-
ing the capacity of their members on domestic resources mobilisation through community philan-
thropy. In doing so, the CoPs provide training on, for example, mobilising communities to lead in
promoting their development, relationship building and domestic resource mobilisation strategies
(e.g. local fundraising etc.). As part of the capacity building training provided by the CoPs, some
local CSOs mentioned that they had established community fundraising volunteers who mobilise
local resources (i.e. in-cash and in-kind from community members) to support their work.
Those interviewed further mentioned that the capacity building on resource mobilisation has
helped their organisations to reduce their dependency on external donor funding and has created
an opportunity for promoting their downward accountability to their beneficiaries. This has also en-
hanced their organisational autonomy because of their reduced external donor dependency. Howev-
er, the concern among many interviewees was that they have been unable to raise the much-needed
domestic resources compared to external donor funding to support their operations, for example,
because of a lack of transparency and accountability on the part of local CSOs.
Box 4 | Giving for Change (GfC) Project and Capacity Building for Domestic
Resource Mobilisation
Another example in Uganda is the Community
Development Resource Network (CDRN), which
has embarked on investing in assets, such as real
estate, where part of the space on the organisa-
tional premises is rented on a commercial basis
(interview SNGO, 11-10-2022). Profits from this
are ploughed back into organisational operations.
Additionally, CDRN also offers consultancy ser-
vices for the government of Uganda, donor agen-
cies and other development agencies as a source
of revenue for the organisation; this reduces its
reliance on foreign funding. Locally-raised reve-
nues are collected on a ‘reserve account’ to meet
administrative costs, which are rarely funded by
donors.
Taken together, providing or receiving more flexi-
ble, unconditional and/or core funding is the sec-
ond most frequent initiative in this area. Nearly
30% of NNGOs mention such actions and 20%
of SNGOs. To this, we might add participatory
grant-making (a further 7% and 6% of NNGOs
and SSNGOs, respectively), as this also offers
recipients a bigger say in funding decisions.
Several respondents, especially from Southern
organisations, indicated they made conscious
efforts to sensitise donors towards more flexible
funding. One respondent explained that:
‘We seek to inform the strategies of [Northern]
funder partners to expand their framing of
gender, power and intersectionality. [Our aim
is to] deepen their understanding of structural
violence and other barriers that Global South
organisations and movements might face
when trying to access resources, particularly
from the Global North’.
Although mentioned substantially fewer times,
joint resource mobilisation (10% of NNGOs
28 Where do we go from here?
and 2% of SNGOs) and (certainly) Southern-led
bidding (3% of SNGOs) are ways of balancing
power between Northern and Southern develop-
ment organisations and building the autonomy
of SNGOs over all aspects of operations in the
case of the latter. Encouraging SNGOs to work in
consortia is another strategy that comes from the
Ugandan case study material. It reportedly helped
to minimise competition among NGOs, allowed
smaller NGOs opportunity to access grants, and
bolstered their collective bargaining and resource
mobilisation potential. A respondent at Oxfam
who was central in the implementation of the EL-
NHA project explained:
‘We advised local organisations that in order
to win the grants, organisations needed to
form consortia to bring different skills and
ideas together to be able to shoot with one
strong proposal that brings out complemen-
tarity among them’.
Interview NNGO, 12-04-2023
Several organisations had been working towards
a more equal distribution of resources in the
partnership. One NNGO respondent explained,
‘We identify and apply for opportunities in the UK
that partners wouldn’t be eligible for, but make sure
roughly 75% of the budget goes to them’.
Decolonising internal and external
language and communications
Finally, in the arena of language, Figure 13 shows
that many organisations from the Global South
(44%) and North (42%) have taken actions aimed
at awareness raising and dialoguing about North-
South stereotyping, power relations and language.
Refraining from not using specific terms and
phrases (e.g., beneficiaries, underdeveloped, field
office, capacity building) is important in address-
ing power imbalances for organisations in both
geographies. One SNGO respondent explained
that:
‘Language sets the relation on terms of en-
gagement… the type of language you use
can actually be derogatory, can be pejorative
in nature. I once worked for [INGO name
withheld] and our white expatriate colleagues
considered us ‘locals’…The way that sounds
feels like you have a local cow and you have
an exotic cow so sometimes you think of local
as being of low quality’.
Interview SNGO, 20-06-2022
Some NNGOs are cognisant of these concerns:
‘[We’ve made] efforts not to adopt language
that might have negative connotations. And
we do not use the term ‘in the field’ anymore,
as our [Southern] partner has made us under-
stand that this is offensive to them’.
A relatively large number of NNGOs (39%) go
further by stating that they have decolonised their
(external) communication. For example, a survey
respondent explained that:
‘In all respects of our work, we are aware not
to reproduce stigma, just as we do not exclu-
sively represent others as their marginaliza-
tion. We try to tell nuanced stories and let the
people we cooperate with, define themselves.
And we are careful not to contribute to a nar-
rative about the Global South as civilization-
ally inferior or culturally backward’.
6. What actions are bring undertaken to close the gap? 29
Alongside identifying initiatives they partook in
across these five areas, respondents were also
asked to identify their top three priorities for ad-
dressing power imbalances across these catego-
ries.
As Figure 14 illustrates, there is strong alignment
between perceptions of SNGOs and NNGOs in
this ranking. For SNGOs, a clear preference for
addressing inequalities in the arena of funding is
evident (with a score = 1.01), followed by policy
(score = 0.86) and programming (score = 0.83) in
almost joint equal second place. This ranking was
the same for NNGOs, too. (with scores of 0.9,
0.79 and 0.78 respectively). This is no surprise if
we return to Figure 9’s magnanimous identifica-
tion of funding and resources as by far the core
driver of power imbalances between SNGOs and
NNGOs.
The only clear area in which NNGOs placed
greater priority than SNGOs is in the arena of
language; perhaps no surprise here given the
work that needs to be done in representing global
development efforts and the different actors in-
volved to Northern audiences. This work remains
important, but clear too from Figure 14 is that
these efforts should run alongside and not inde-
pendent of more direct action to transfers power
and control to SNGOs in funding, policy and pro-
gramming. In-depth interviews revealed a similar
reasoning, stressing that discussions about lan-
guage should not slow down other actions.
1,20
1,00
0,80
0,60
0,40
0,20
0,00
Policy Programming Governance Funding Language Other
Figure 14 | Ranking areas of actions to combat power imbalances, with division between NNGOs and
SNGOs, in %.
Note 1: The total n for each rank differs (and runs between n=152 for rank 1 to n=65 for rank 6) as respondents do not necessarily score
actions on all areas. Note 2: Areas ranked as top priority (= rank 1) are multiplied by 6 to express their weight, those in rank 2 by 5, in
rank 3 by 4, in rank 4 by 3, in rank 5 by 2 and in rank 6 by 1 to reach an overall score per area. As there are substantially more NNGOs
than SNGOs that answered this specific question, the total score per group is then divided by the total number of votes casted in the
groups to reach a comparable figure.
Area of action
Total score
Source: Own calculations based on the survey.
NNGOs SNGOs
Priorities for action: addressing inequalities in funding,
policy and programming
30 Where do we go from here?
The survey also gave respondents a chance to
highlight three future priorities for shifting the
power balance towards Southern organisations.
Respondents were asked in their own words to de-
scribe briefly what changes they want to see with
regards to changing power imbalances between
NNGOs and SNGOs. Responses to this question
were rich, detailed and enlightening, and the re-
search team categorised these into 13 overarching
themes (Figure 15).
With only one NNGO respondent explicitly stat-
ing that there is no need for change, widespread
recognition of the need for change is clear. But the
sheer number of types of preferred priorities indi-
cates there is no broad agreement on actions for
the future. This gives the impression that search-
ing for the best ways to address power imbalances
is still ongoing.
In some places there is some level of conver-
gence in future priorities. Comparable numbers
of Northern and Southern organisations (around
15% of both), for example, call for being good
partners by providing broad-based support based
on listening, understanding and appreciating local
knowledge. Likewise, 14.5% of SNGOs and 15%
of NNGOs see the local determination of devel-
opment as a future priority. The latter, in turn, is
strongly linked to the importance of decolonising
partnerships and narratives (e.g. highlighting part-
ner voices and perspectives) - a point which (in
contrast) is substantially more often mentioned
by NNGOs.
Yet Figure 15 also highlights some clustering to-
wards specific types of actions and some import-
ant divergence in the priorities of Northern and
Southern organisations when it comes to prioritis-
ing the partnership level or the broader, systemic
foundations of the sector that underpin these in-
equalities. A clear distinction between partnership
and systemic levels can be witnessed in two areas,
in greater priority and participation of SNGOs and
in funding.
Thirty percent of Northern NGOs prioritise the
greater involvement of Southern NGOs in deci-
sion-making, strategy and programming, a priority
that plays out within the scope of existing partner-
ships and activities. In comparison, this was seen
as a priority by a smaller 25% of Southern NGOs.
Southern NGOs were more likely to prioritise
a more foundational rebalancing of power and
influence, with 20% highlighting the need for a
‘transnational mind and practice shift that centres
Southern NGOs’. This refers to the need for a sys-
temic change at the global level, including South-
ern leadership, South-South exchanges and hori-
zontal collaborations. Just under 17% of Northern
NGOs prioritised this systemic level.
The second area in which a clear distinction can
be made between a partnership and systemic level
is funding. Northern organisations (28%) stress
the importance of improving their own funding
practices within existing partnerships emphasis-
ing unrestricted funding, alongside fewer condi-
tions, less bureaucracy, more flexibility and more
long-term funding.
In contrast, Southern organisations prioritised a
much deeper reconfiguration of funding process-
es at the systemic level. With 36% Southern re-
spondents emphasising the need for better access
to funding and information for Southern NGOs,
this priority received stronger backing than any
other among one group. This includes the need to
channel a much greater volume of funds directly
to SNGOs rather than have funds intermediated
through NNGOs. As one respondent remarked,
we need
‘[m]ore focus on funding attention to devel-
opment organisations in the South, particu-
larly small and medium-sized organisations;
including more context-specific donor condi-
tionalities and processes which promotes local
driven development’.
Northern and Southern priorities in focusing future efforts
6. What actions are bring undertaken to close the gap? 31
A further 30% of Northern NGOs also spoke to
this systemic priority, highlighting their recogni-
tion that change within their own partnerships
must be accompanied by broader structural
change.
We can see from these distinctions that the scale
of change is as important a question as what is
changing. Do we want to see change at the organ-
isational and partnership-level or at the systemic
level? Do these things go hand-in-hand, in a
mutually-reinforcing cycle, and if not, what do we
need to do simultaneously to ensure that the sum
of the programmatic and policy changes influenc-
es change within the broader system? Can ‘real’
transformation occur without a broader system
change in which Southern voices and organisa-
tions are no longer dependent on whether power
is ‘given’ to them (but can, also, ultimately be
taken away)? We return to these questions in our
concluding reflections.
Other response (including unclear)
Capacity building in SNGOs
Transnational mind and practice shifts that centre SNGOs
(systemic level)
Expanding discussions of shifting power right down to
community level
Actions / capacity building for NNGOs
Local determination of development
Catalyse local recruitment, leadership and representation
Enhancing revenue streams for SNGO perspective
Trust and broad-based partner support
Greater involvement and autonomy of SNGOs into/in
decision-making, strategy and programming
Better access to funding and information for SNGOs
(systemic level)
Better terms of funding for SNGOs (Partnership level)
Decolonising partnerships and narratives
Figure 15 | Preferred priorities for tackling power imbalances between NGOs in the Global North and
South, with division between NNGOs and SNGOs, in % (n=343).
•
0,0
•
5,0
•
10,0
•
15,0
•
20,0
•
25,0
•
30,0
•
35,0
•
40,0
Source: Own calculations based on the survey.
NNGOs (n=182) SNGOs (n=161)
32 Where do we go from here?
Survey responses indicate that SNGOs are much
more likely to have evaluated (formally or in-
formally) the actual effects of actions that they
undertook to change power relations. More than
50% SNGOs says to have done so, almost twice
the percentage of NNGOs (27%). Another 27% of
SNGOs and 39% of NNGOs are keen to, but have
not done so yet.
When asked about the effects of actions to change
power relations, NNGO respondents see these ef-
fects in increasing consultation and (in some cas-
es) participation of SNGOs by increasing dialogue
with partners and giving more room to SNGOs
to give input. Some NNGOs point out having
increased their support for local capacity strength-
ening of SNGOs in response to these evaluations.
SNGO respondents, on their part, mention being
firmer with their demands for change and vocalis-
ing their needs. Some also reported gaining more
decision-making power regarding choosing prior-
ities.
However, clear indicators of the actual effects of
these actions are hard to come by. The survey
also requested respondents to add links to online
resources indicating the actual effects of such ac-
tions. This resulted in 50 links to documents dis-
7. Evaluating the pace and
(barriers to) success of actions
Main findings
• NNGOs and SNGOs rarely provide reports on actions that share details on actions or evaluations.
• Reported actions concern changes within programming rather than more systemic-level actions.
• Most reports consists of general discussions, providing little concrete guidance to organisations
seeking to address power relations.
• NNGOs explain the limited changes thus far by often referring to constraints in their own
relations with donors, stating that big change is beyond the confines of their relations with
SNGOs.
• SNGOs are limited in bringing about transformation because of their dependency and everyday
struggle to survive.
• Both NNGOs and SNGOs also mention a wide range of other barriers, mostly related to power,
interest, knowledge (e.g. lack of best practices to learn from), and time/resource constraints.
• SNGOs also highlight issues of trust in NNGOs and civic space constraints as barriers. For
NNGOs, risks and fear form important barriers.
• Both NNGOs and SNGOs emphasise systemic inequalities as barriers to change, emphasizing
Northern power keeping the process slow and limited.
• The Ugandan ELNHA case provides an inspiring example that change is possible.
7. Evaluating the pace and success of actions 33
cussing various types of actions (for an in-depth
analysis of these documents, see Appendix 5).
Most documents discuss the need for change,
the principles underlying such change and the
strategies implemented to achieve change.
Actions are discussed, for example, related to
staff diversity, mutual capacity strengthening,
adjustment training to the local context, and
creating space for Southern NGOs to influence
decision-making. Yet very few documents move
beyond more general discussions whilst evidence
about the effects of reported actions is largely
absent. Where more tangible actions are outlined
they tend to be limited to the programmatic
space rather than at the organisational policy lev-
el. While the overall picture is that NNGOs are
actively engaging with the issue, it is not clear
how they are concretely changing their practices
and how this is impacting upon power relations.
Overall, transformative and encouraging exem-
plars are scarce.
Things are moving… but not quickly enough
When it comes to respondents’ perceptions of the
pace of change within their organisation, around
60% of respondents in both NNGOs and SNGOs
feel that their organisation should be moving
more quickly in these areas (Figure 16). Very few
respondents (1.5% of SNGOs and 4.2% of NN-
GOs) think that their organisations are moving
too fast.
In-depth interviews confirmed these sentiments.
While Northern interviews highlighted the diver-
sity of stages in which organisations are at, the
overall consensus is that NNGOs are not active
enough and that the action taken is marginal. One
NNGO network reflected on the actions of its
members:
‘I think since for about two years now, these
discussions have been going on and it’s only
now that we are stepping away from just
discussing and actually coming with concrete
initiatives, steps, and actions’.
Interview NNGO network, 10-11-2022
Most organisations are in the beginning stages of
change and while a few organisations are boost-
ing ahead, the rest are lagging behind. Clear then,
is that the profile achieved by those organisations
further ahead in this journey are not representa-
tive of the sector’s progress as a whole.
In reflecting on their ‘pace of change’ perceptions,
NNGOs emphasise that change takes time and
is a process. Rushing this process, respondents
highlighted, will run the risk of imposing the ac-
tions undertaken to shift power on SNGOs – do-
ing the opposite of letting go of power.
NNGOs also expressed the constraints that they
face within the confines of their own donor rela-
tionships. They are also in dependent relation-
ships and thus cannot move at their own pace.
‘He who pays the piper, calls the tune’ as the say-
Figure 16 | Pace of change within the own or-
ganisation, with division between NNGOs and
SNGOs, in % (n=181).
70,0
60,0
50,0
40,0
30,0
20,0
10,0
0,0
NNGOs (n=118) SNGOs (n=67)
Quickly enough Should move
more quickly
More quickly than
we should
Source: Own calculations based on the survey.
34 Where do we go from here?
ing goes, and this is as applicable for the relation-
ship between institutional donors and NNGOs as
it is between NNGOs and SNGOs.
Lastly, NNGOs stress that the pace of change
depends on where in the organisation you look.
Younger staff are more eager to push for chang-
ing power relations than older staff, highlighted
respondents, alongside differences across depart-
ments. Financial departments, in particular, were
highlighted as more risk-averse.
Interviews confirmed that people are eager to
learn from best practices that are slowly coming
to the surface. This cross-sectoral learning and
growing networks aimed at shifting power in the
development sector were widely acknowledged as
important for inspiration and learning. That these
networks are often still siloed into ‘development’,
‘humanitarian’, and ‘peace’ sectors was acknowl-
edged alongside the need for more sharing across
them.
Northern interviewees also recognised that gain-
ing international profile and influence is not as
easy for all organisations. According to them,
initiatives from the Global South are not as visible
as those from NNGOs and likewise small NGOs
have less capacity to communicate their initia-
tives to the wider sector. Interviewees agreed the
debate can be made more inclusive, bringing in a
larger number of good practices from the Global
South and small innovative NGOs. As noted by an
NNGO interviewee:
‘The sector right now is at a tipping point, or
close to a tipping point, and I genuinely think
we are edging towards a point in which the
sector will change for the good, permanently,
because there will be a critical mass of people
talking about it’.
Interview NNGO, 11-11-2022
There were conflicting feelings evident amongst
SNGOs in the interviews. While voicing their
eagerness to do more in this direction, they also
emphasised the fact that they are already doing a
lot alongside their partners, especially considering
their capacity. Talking about localisation, a respon-
dent observed:
‘And right now, if you go to any of our sector
players, you will actually find that an NNGO
has local partners that they are either working
with or partnering with, some of them reluc-
tantly, some of them willingly. The relation-
ships are different, we have some that have
transformative relationships, we have some
that have very transactional relationship,
the driving transactional relationships are
those who are still holding onto power and
they don’t want to let go. But those that are
driving transformative relationships in other
wards they are saying look, we want to part-
ner with you but we as an INGO don’t want
to just look at you as someone to implement
our programs, we want to see your agency
transforming in a positive way. So, we want
to transfer the knowledge, the capacity to
your people and we also want you to transfer
the skills you have so that we learn from you.
So, we have agencies that are doing this and
others are stilling clinging onto power’.
Interview SNGO, 19-10-2022
There was a clear sense among respondents of
their recognition that there remains much more
to be done, evident in the ways in which SNGOs
highlighted that they continue to demand change
from NNGOs and institutional donors, regardless
of there being little response to these efforts.
When exploring this conundrum from their
partners’ perspectives, Northern interviewees
highlighted the dilemma that while SNGOs feel
a stronger urge to do something about power
imbalances, they have little means through which
to do so. Coming from a starting position with
comparatively little power gives them a disadvan-
tageous starting point and this is exacerbated by
the fact that some SNGOs are stuck in the status
quo, waiting for funding to come around again
and again, rather than pursuing change.
7. Evaluating the pace and success of actions 35
The survey also asked respondents about their
counterparts’ speed in taking action to reduce
power imbalances (see Figure 17). The results
here are indicative of the lead role taken by North-
ern NGOs in these processes.
Nearly 45% of NNGOs reported that their South-
ern counterparts were moving more slowly than
them and nearly 30% of SNGOs highlighted that
their Northern counterparts were moving more
quickly than them. Only 9.5% of NNGOs report-
ed their Southern counterparts as moving more
quickly.
This is not universal, however. In noticeable con-
trast, the most common answer for over 35%
of SNGO respondents was that their Northern
counterparts were working at a slower pace than
themselves.
Perhaps this is not contradictory but instead
speaks to the profiles of those choosing to fill
out our survey: trailblazers from both Southern
and Northern NGOs who see themselves as lead-
ing change in their organisations and working
relationships. It is important to highlight, at the
same time, the high proportion of respondents in
both groups answering this question with ‘I don’t
know’, suggesting that we can interpret this with
some caution.
50,0
45,0
40,0
35,0
30,0
25,0
20,0
15,0
10,0
5,0
0,0
NNGOs (n=116) SNGOs (n=65)
At same
speed
More quickly
than us
More slowly
than us
Don’t know
Figure 17 | Pace of change of partners compa-
red to own organisation, with division between
NNGOs and SNGOs, in % (n=181).
Source: Own calculations based on the survey.
Interests, resources and restrictions: barriers to change
Changing deep-rooted power relations is no easy
task. The survey also explored the barriers NGOs
face in taking actions to redistribute power, lead-
ing one NNGO respondent to attack explicitly the
‘naïve idea among academics (yes, you) and some
peer agencies that localisation is simple’.
The multiple challenges and barriers to address-
ing power imbalances that NGOs experience was
clearly evident. Across a list of 11 different bar-
riers, the vast majority of respondents – 76% of
SNGOs and 81% of NNGOs – identified between
two and six obstacles. Only five in each geography
suggested that they faced only one barrier. One
organisation in each group ticked all 11 different
barriers! This multitude of barriers was also illus-
trated in interviews, where interviewees highlight
a variety of barriers ranging from personal beliefs,
organisational and partnership-barriers to sys-
tem-wide barriers.
Figure 18 illustrates the barriers identified by sur-
vey respondents. This clearly illustrates that all
organisations perceive the limited room for ma-
noeuvre that donors offer to them as their biggest
barrier to progress in this journey. More than 80%
of SNGOs feels this to be a barrier, against 65% of
NNGOs.
The question, of course, is who are the donors
that each group of respondents are referring
to? Given that NNGOs often receive substantial
36 Where do we go from here?
parts of their funding from governments (Banks
& Brockington, 2020; Schulpen & Van Kempen,
2020) and SNGOs from Northern private organi-
sations, it is logical to assume that NNGOs prin-
cipally talk about bilateral and multilateral donors
and SNGOs about NNGOs. WACSI (2021) also
highlights that SNGOs often equate NNGOs with
bilateral donors when it comes to the practices
and conditionalities associated with funding, poli-
cies and programmes.
Limited financial resources is the second most
frequently highlighted barrier by 73% of SNGOs.
It was also a common response for NNGOs,
of whom 55% also reported this. In a context
in which funding remains predominantly – and
tightly – project-based, it is likely that there is little
(financial) room for either NNGOs and SNGOs to
invest in out-of-project activities, regardless of how
big a priority they are for them internally or within
their partnerships.
Time is another prerequisite for investing in pro-
cesses of change. NNGOs (54%) highlighted
limited available time for these processes almost
as frequently as a lack of financial resources. In
contrast, substantially fewer SNGOs (30%) identi-
fied time as a major barrier. Perhaps a lack of time
also feeds into another notable finding, that 22%
of SNGOs report their partners ‘not listening’ as a
barrier to changing power relations.
Important barriers for both groups are also dif-
ferent interests between partners (46% and 56%
of NNGOs and SNGOs, respectively) and institu-
tional resistance, the latter which was particularly
prominent among NNGOs. Nearly half of NNGOs
reported institutional resistance to change, in
comparison with 30% of SNGOs.
Interviews revealed one interesting area in which
NNGOs may be resistant to change. One respon-
dent highlighted that some small NNGOs may not
see the need for changing power relations given
that they often pride themselves on their rela-
tionship being built on solidarity and friendship.
Calls for change, against this background, may be
perceived as ‘a kick in the gut’ (Interviews small
NNGO network, 13-10-2022; 14-10-2022).
Institutional resistance may also simply be based
on fear (of change). Fear was particularly promi-
nent among NNGOs, among whom nearly 50%
of NNGOs reported fear as a barrier to action and
progress. In contrast, just under one-third of SN-
GOs reported similarly.
Interviews with Southern NGOs revealed that
amongst the broader category of ‘fear’, concerns
about survival, sustainability and self-preserva-
tion are paramount. This may prevent them from
speaking out, but also influences their own drive
in this direction as their main focus remains on
how to mobilise resources to support their organ-
isational activities rather than engaging in discus-
sions about shifting the power. As one interviewee
highlighted:
‘They [Local CSOs] are focused on what they
are doing [i.e. their projects] so when some
of these issues [shift the power and changing
power dynamics] come up, they understand
and can appreciate it, but it is not their prior-
ity’.
Interview SNGO, 03-10-2022
Around one-third of NNGOs and SNGOs highlight
a lack of knowledge of what to do or how to get
started as playing a key role in preventing greater
or deeper action. This is a barrier which might be
closely linked to a lack of sharing of best practices
or collective spaces for discussing and brainstorm-
ing ideas for change.
Interviews and case studies with Southern or-
ganisations identified another important barrier
not captured in the survey, namely restricted civic
space. As civil society actors SNGOs must operate
within a tightly regulated and political environ-
ment. What they can or cannot do also depends
on what the government allows them to do and
these constraints impinge upon efforts to shift the
power. In Uganda, for example, the state monitors
resources coming into the country through North-
ern NGOs to ensure that they are not used to sup-
7. Evaluating the pace and success of actions 37
port the opposition. CSOs in Uganda were said to
be operating on tenterhooks and more interested
in securing their physical safety vis-à-vis the state:
‘We are constantly looking behind our backs
not because we are doing something wrong,
but because people that witch-hunt CSOs are
all around you… that kind of environment is
not one that can allow Ugandan organisa-
tions to get interested in decolonising devel-
opment or have the luxury to engage in depth
conversations about shift the power …’
Interview SNGO, 26-10-2022
This makes it hard for NGOs there to establish
meaningful partnerships with international ac-
tors. Even when SNGOs have all the capabilities
or the prerequisites to participate in partnerships
on an equal basis, the uncertainty of the political
environment creates a level of risk. In Uganda it
is reported that now activities relating to shift the
power happen in sectors considered by the na-
tional government as less politically threatening
to it, such as the humanitarian sector. Otherwise,
attempts in the much politically-charged areas
of governance, as was the case with the now
defunct Democratic Governance Facility (DGF),
are suspected by politicians ‘to finance activities
and organisations designed to subvert Govern-
ment under the guise of improving governance’
(President Museveni cited in Akankwatsa, 2021).
Unfortunately, during a 2021 clampdown on such
NGOs the activities of our case study programme,
ELNHA, suffered because some of the affected
organisations were part of the agencies selected
to build the capacity of local agencies.
Finally, the interviews point towards the barrier
of mutual suspicion. Some Southern actors are
treading cautiously as they doubt the willingness
of NNGOs to actually transfer more power. It is
also clear that some NNGOs mistrust the capac-
ity, integrity, transparency and accountability of
their Southern partners, with the former feeling a
strong obligation to account for taxpayers’ money.
Figure 18 | Preferred priorities for tackling power imbalances between NGOs in the Global North and
South, with division between NNGOs and SNGOs, in % (n=343).
•
0,0
•
10,0
•
20,0
•
30,0
•
40,0
•
50,0
•
60,0
•
70,0
•
80,0
•
90,0
Others
Partners not ‘listening’
Fear
Co-option of agendas by powerful
actors external of partnerships
Institutional resistance
Limited time
Lack of knowledge of what to do / how to get started
A lack of sharing of best practice
Co-option of agendas by powerful partners
Different interests between partners
Limited financial resources
Donor restrictions giving little room for manoeuvre
Source: Own calculations based on the survey.
NNGOs (n=182) SNGOs (n=161)
38 Where do we go from here?
Figure 19 reports on the issues that SNGOs and
NNGOs reported as their primary concern or bar-
rier experienced when it comes to shifting power.
This was an open-ended question giving space
for detailed answers that shed more light on the
issues raised in the previous section. Immediately
visible looking at this is the divergence of opin-
ions between Southern and Northern organisa-
tions in this.
The systemic inequalities underpinning these
power imbalances was by far the most commonly
identified primary barrier. 55% of SNGOs and
28% of NNGOs highlighted the Northern domi-
nance of funding, agenda and compliance as the
biggest barrier, reflecting the colonial roots of the
aid system that was introduced in the very start of
this analysis.
For NNGOs, this in turn creates a large internal
barrier in generating a mindset that change isn’t
possible given factors outside their control. Nearly
one-third of NNGOs emphasised the fact that ‘big
change is beyond the confines of their own rela-
tionship’ as a core obstacle, in comparison with
only 2 percent of SNGOs. Our case study in Ugan-
da is illustrative of the fact that this is not neces-
sarily the case, with the ELNHA being a unique
example of a programme that reaches far beyond
Oxfam’s own partnerships to also tackle power
imbalances in the broader humanitarian sector at
the regional, national and global level (See Box 5).
the humanitarian response.
What is the biggest barrier to change?
Figure 19 | Primary concern or barrier experienced, with division between NNGOs and SNGOs, in %
(n=121).
Source: Own calculations based on the survey.
NNGOs (n=74) SNGOs (n=47)
•
0
•
10
•
20
•
30
•
40
•
50
•
60
Other
Lack of collective action (SNGOs)
Lack of internal fund-raising ability, organisational strength, confidence in own power
Co-option of agenda by NNGOs, lack of influence within NNGO agendas
Buy-in’ for shifting power is not universal with organisations and ‘partnerships’
Lack of best practice
Big change is beyond confines of our NNGO-SNGO relationships
Shrinking global civil society space
Fear of repercussions of success among NNGOs
Fear of change or the unknown process
Time, energy and fund-consuming to move beyond ideas and discussion
Northern dominance in funding, agendas, compliance or mindsets
7. Evaluating the pace and success of actions 39
In a humanitarian context in which local actors were largely excluded from coordination and in-
ter-agency meetings, Oxfam’s ELNHA programme in Uganda prioritised giving partners a stronger
voice as one of its key pillars. Prior to the project, one respondent highlighted that the humanitarian
space had been so restrictive that speaking was a preserve of international organisations.
Central to these efforts was the mobilisation of local actors and building a collective space in which
they come together to magnify their voices and access a greater share of, and say over, local humani-
tarian response resources. Coordination platforms were established to enable them to access nation-
al and international spaces, including Interagency Steering Committees and Grand Bargain discus-
sions. These civil society platforms were mobilised at the regional (e.g. West Nile, Acholi, Karamoja
and Western Uganda), national and global levels to build their influence in humanitarian spaces and
reduce the risk of being isolated as individual organisations.
These platforms coordinated diverse partners from those regions; civil society organisations and
also including local governments, media and local universities. They enabled them to share experi-
ences, build capacities and, in the words of one respondent, to ‘advocate collectively so that we have
strength in numbers in whatever we do’. With this space and strength in numbers, local organisations
learnt to negotiate, engage or disagree with the international partners ‘donors’ about what can work
for them and could not work.
The inclusion of local government helped to create an enabling environment, with government
structures supporting the idea of having local actors respond to humanitarian crises in these regions
against the backdrop of the dominance of the sector by International NGOs.
This platform enabledlocal actors to voice their concerns nationally in order to transform the balance
of power in their favour. Oxfam also used its global convening power to ensure that its place in some
key international humanitarian spaces were utilised by local actors.
Alongside building strength in confidence and collective bargaining power of Ugandan civil society
organisations, there was also a gradual attitudinal change by International NGOs with regards to the
abilities of local actors. In some cases, this had been met by an ability of some local NGOs to obtain
direct funding from them, rather than be awarded funding through intermediaries like Oxfam. While
there was still significant progress to make, one respondent highlight, ‘We have largely moved away
from that fear that local actors are risky and they have gradually increased their ability to support
them’. Respondents reported that progress in including local organisations in coordination mecha-
nism in the humanitarian sector were attributed to the ELHNA project that began the conversation
about letting local actors lead the humanitarian response.
Many of the obstacles to shifting power that the survey revealed (see Section 7) also emerged from
our interviews. Not all members of Oxfam staff had the same commitment to genuinely empowering
local actors, with some fearing them as competitors that could take their jobs. Some felt that insuf-
ficient time and resources had been committed to what was a long-term change process, with the
consortia feeling rushed rather than focusing on the solid working relationships that would enable
progress made to be sustainable. This was most notable following the closure of the project, after
Box 5 | Uganda’s ELNHA: Building collective space and voice of local
humanitarian actors
40 Where do we go from here?
For NNGOs, several of the broad categories rep-
resented in Figure 19 can be couched under the
broader category of ‘fear’. 12% of NGOs highlight-
ed a fear of change, especially in unknown and
uncharted waters. As one NNGO explained, ‘I feel
like there is an innate fear of disrupting the historical
ways of doing things - fear of losing donors or board
participation, [a] fear of change generally’.
One respondent highlighted that these under-
pinning systemic inequalities was even feeding
into the approach of NNGOs when it comes even
to shifting power. ‘Often we say we’re doing in
a ‘shift the power’ way’, they pointed out, ‘but it
feels more top down than ever’. SNGOs also ex-
press these concerns with 12 percent highlighting
the co-option of the shift the power agenda by
NNGOs as the primary barrier, giving them little
influence within NNGO agendas and processes.
Fear extends to concerns about the time and effort
that must be invested in these initiatives to move
from interest and willingness towards concrete
steps and actions. As one NNGO respondent
highlighted, ‘A big concern is that the whole dis-
course of shift of power, making the analysis and
discussing, eats a lot of energy…’.
And any time or resources invested in these
efforts must be taken from elsewhere, making
it hard for NNGOs to move beyond good inten-
tions. ‘[We have] good intentions by us as an or-
ganisation’ said one NNGO, ‘but [there is] a lack
of prioritising the changes we need over other
needs of the org[anisation]’.
Learning what to do is time-intensive, but so to,
is the process of unlearning decades of ways of
dominance and ways of working. As one NNGO
respondent frankly put it, ‘Everyone comes to us to
‘learn’ but few realize that learning would require
unlearning and resources both of financial and time.
That’s a commitment few are willing to make’.
The time and financial costs associated with in-
vesting in these activities were also noted as the
primary barrier by 36% of SNGOs, making it the
second biggest barrier they highlighted. ‘Funding
has become a big challenge, [we] have brilliant ideas,
but without resources it will be difficult to achieve
any meaningful goal’, explained one. Another
pointed out that, ‘Time is a huge barrier to under-
take any feedback action… organisations are usually
swamped in requirement fulfilling and doing the ac-
tual social transformation work’.
which the new spaces that were created did not remain as active. They remained in name, but with
minimal activity.
Ultimately, respondents explained that power imbalances persisted in development and humanitari-
an responses within Uganda and that new in-country imbalances had emerged. ‘The playing ground
is not 100% levelled for everyone’, reported one respondent. The lead actors in consortia are the
relatively well-resourced agencies with a bigger say and a greater share of resources compared to
the small agencies. The role of Oxfam itself in the ELNHA project was paternalistic, with local actors
uncritical in following whatever it proposed and going in whatever forums (local and international) it
took them. Indeed, it is difficult to trace the outcomes of participating in many of these forums, save
for a few instances where Ugandan NGOs obtained membership to international movements e.g.
the Charter 4 Change.
While the ELNHA highlights the strong and transformational impact that can be had when organisa-
tions focus beyond their own policies, programmes and relationships to also focus on transforming
power imbalances in the broader system, it also highlights that the long-recognised limitations of
funding for humanitarian and development still impede these efforts, including and especially the
dominance of short-term and project-based funding that limits the sustainability of progress and still
places international actors in the lead.
7. Evaluating the pace and success of actions 41
42 Where do we go from here?
Clear from all three of our case studies in Ghana and Uganda was one strong unintended side effect
of global efforts to shift the power to Southern NGOs. In the case of the Giving for Change (GfC)
project, STAR Ghana Foundation as the ‘anchor’ institution receives funding from the GfC consor-
tium and serves as a ‘local donor’ to implementing partners.
This positioning situates STAR Ghana Foundation as an intermediary organisation that wields much
power in determining the funding priorities and modalities, including deciding on the thematic ar-
eas and amount to be disbursed and setting the reporting and accountability requirements for the
partners. These are all detailed in an Expression of Interest that local CSOs respond to through their
proposal. Interviews with the representatives of STAR Ghana indicated that the design of the GfC
included minimal consultation with the CSOs and that the structure of the Expression of Interest
(especially the matching fund) was co-created with the Communities of Practice (CoPs) before they
were launched. However, as a partner interviewed shared: ‘Normally, they will put out a call and then
they set the parameters on what they are looking for and if you fit the requirements you go for it. So, we
[the partners] do not set those parameters [e.g., grant amount etc]’ (Interview SNGO, 13-06-2023).
Here, the shift of power down the aid chain exacerbated power inequalities between national and
local actors through the promotion of STAR Ghana Foundation to gatekeeper of resources.
Similarly, in the WVL project, Plan International Ghana receives the core funding from Global Affairs
Canada and subgrants this to its implementing partners in Ghana. For this reason, funding deci-
sions are made by the grant selection committee, the Project Management Team and the donor, put-
ting the balance of power in favour of Plan International and Global Affairs Canada. In sharing their
experiences of these power imbalances between SNGOs, one key informant stated that:
‘you find power imbalances between national NGOs and CBOs or even local organisations [intermedi-
aries] that give grants and those that receive grants. The power dynamics is also prevalent among CSOs
at the national level, so it has been passed on from the INGOs or donors to the local donors (…). We are
talking about shift the power at the international level but how do we ensure that in our own backyard we
have an equitable balance of power between organisations?’
Interview SNGO, 24-10-2022
In Uganda, whereas Oxfam emphasized partnerships in the ELNHA project, some of the local actors
doubted whether the manner in which this was handled was empowering to them. This is because
in some cases the ELNHA funds were disbursed through intermediary NGOs. Additionally, the Hu-
manitarian response grant Facility (HRGF) and the cash transfer programming (CTP) funding was
given but in a consortia arrangement. A key informant observed: ‘they are partnering but some of them
are doing it just because it is a condition for them to get the grant’. (Interview ELNHA Partner 2, 28-03-
2023).
Consequently, some respondents stated that the ELNHA project did not challenge power imbalances
among national and local humanitarian agencies in Uganda. It was for instance revealed that organ-
isations that are headquartered in Uganda’s capital Kampala continued to consider themselves as
more powerful vis-à-vis those based in the countryside. The following quote is illustrative: ‘Organi-
Box 6 | Shifting the Power or Shifting the Problem?
New Intermediary Organisations in Ghana and Uganda
7. Evaluating the pace and success of actions 43
Responses to this question also raise another
level to this fear, the longer-term fear of ‘success’
that 9% of NNGOs reported. If organisations are
successful in their goal of rectifying these power
imbalances by finding ways to effectively transfer
resources and decision-making power to Southern
NGOs, what does this mean for them, their roles,
their contributions and their survival? As one
NNGO respondent reported, ‘Although there is a
wish for a shift, the true implications that [this] has
are feared’.
A lack of confidence and fatigue is evident in re-
sponses from SNGOs, both in the categories that
they prioritised and in their explicit responses.
In terms of a lack of confidence, there were three
categories in which only SNGO responses fit. First
in terms of reference to their limited organisa-
tional strength, internal fund-raising capacity and
confidence in their own power, which 11% of SN-
GOs indicated. A small number (2%) of SNGOs
also mentioned a lack of collective action among
Southern organisations holding them back. And
lastly, there was the 11% of SNGOs who see their
influence on NNGO agendas as quite limited in a
context of NNGO co-option of the agendas.
This last one also reflects a fatigue among SN-
GOs, including their resignation that NNGOs
might be talking about these issues but prefer the
comfort and power of the status quo (mirroring
responses from NNGOs themselves) – ‘Many
donors want the status quo that gives them ample
room to maintain their position’ explained one
SNGO.
There is also a recognition that while there is an
energy to generate discussions in these areas,
momentum is easily lost. One SNGO respondent
highlighted, for example ‘[The] lack of interest and
of follow up on the recommendations taken in the
workshops initiated at this regard’. This no doubt
makes it even harder to justify significant time
and resource investment. As, too, is the situation
that NNGOs raised in which even conversations
on shifting power in the sector have become dom-
inated by Northern voices, diluting their impact
and co-opting the agenda. As one SNGO put it,
‘[We have a lack of knowledge of where to start and
how to go about it, [but] sometimes this becomes
even more challenging due to the frequent introduc-
tion of co-option’.
One last point that was not mentioned frequent-
ly but is worth drawing out of responses to this
question is around the capacity of Southern
organisations to spend large volumes of inter-
national funding well. One NNGO respondent
suggested that the primary barrier for progress is
the unwillingness of ‘Global South CSOs to clean
their houses of corruption, making it harder to push
the agenda’.
The following comment from one SNGO reveals
an unintended consequence of this, namely that
even where resources and power become de-
centralised and Southern-focused, this happens
at a very small-scale among a small number of
‘trusted’ organisations, creating new inequalities
in the process (See Box 6). ‘This is coupled with the
challenge of competing against monopolistic organ-
isations within the Global South’, they said, ‘who
dictate the pace of growth being direct recipients of
large grants from the Global North’.
sations like ours that have headquarters in Arua, when we are in Kampala, we are called sub-national or-
ganisations and those ones in Kampala call themselves national organisations (...) [with such a language]
they are sending a message to you that you are not as they are(...) it is a kind of psychological warfare’
(Interview ELNHA Project Partner 2, 28-03-2023).
These issues raise critical questions on whether decentralizing power down the existing aid chain
shifts power to those the action intends to empower or simply shifts the problem to lower levels.
44 Where do we go from here?
It is no surprise that above all, this research re-
veals a shared understanding of and frustration
around a global aid system founded on colonial
legacies of inequality that raise serious questions
about whether it is fit for purpose. Global agendas
and priorities are dominated by Northern actors
and interests, with systems of funding maintain-
ing this hierarchy. Across all actors, funding and
resources are widely considered to be the main
source of power imbalances and therefore it is no
surprise to see that they also dominate the priori-
ties of NGOs in the North and South.
Zooming in from these bigger systemic inequali-
ties, we see their impact at the partnership level:
more than 70% of NGOs in the Global North and
South believe that there is a significant power
imbalance between NNGOs and SNGOs. Inter-
estingly, on both sides, NGOs report that their
own partnerships are performing ‘better’ in terms
of power imbalances, while, also on both sides,
organisations see ‘the bigger system’ as problem-
atic.
This raises the question of how to make progress
towards more equitable relationships between
NGOs in the Global North and South (and the
processes and outcomes in policies, programmes
and funding within these) while simultaneously
balancing this with the need for deeper systemic
change.
This is not so much a ‘chicken or egg’ paradox,
because action at one level (within partnerships)
can still take place within a given system. But the
question does remain as to the extent of change
that we can see within the current system. As our
survey reveals, this is not holding many NGOs
around the world from thinking about, discussing
and taking action on these deep-rooted power
imbalances.
But these are accompanied by a widespread rec-
ognition that despite the increasingly high profile
and frequency of these discussions, things are not
moving far or fast enough, whether we consider
the general progress of the sector or within the
confines of particular partnerships. We explore
these issues in the following sections.
8. Conclusions & discussion
This research examines the extent and nature of concrete actions undertaken by
NNGOs and SNGOs with the aim of tackling power asymmetries. In our analysis,
we explicitly distinguish understandings, perspectives and initiatives of actors from
the Global North seeking change, and those of Global South actors. This chapter
starts with summarising the key findings emerging from our survey, interviews and
case studies. We then continue with reflecting on these findings and teasing out
their policy implications.
Where are Northern and Southern actors on the same page?
8. Conclusions & discussion 45
A greater proportion of NNGOs report having
discussed actions to tackle power imbalances
internally (80%) and within their external part-
nerships (75%), dropping to just under 60% for
SNGOs along both dimensions. The driving seat
role that NNGOs are playing in these processes
is evident from our survey. It opens up the first
sense of unease around a process that concerns
shifting power and is being dominated and/or led
by existing power holders. Nearly 70% of NNGOs
highlighted that they had been the ones to initiate
discussions and actions to shift the power within
their relationship, in comparison with around one-
third of SNGOs.
The survey reveals a range of actions being taken
by NGOs within their partnerships in an attempt
to tackle the power inequalities within them. 75%
and 58% of NNGO and SNGOs reported having
taken some action across a spectrum of areas
that includes policy, programming, internal gover-
nance, improved funding and use of language and
stereotyping.
There is a fair spread of activity across these five
areas, though unsurprisingly actions towards im-
proving the use of language and negative stereo-
typing is more prominent among Northern than
Southern NGOs. Improvements to funding were
the most commonly taken action, with around
80% of SNGOs and 64% of NNGOs reporting
activities in this dimension. This is in line with all
organisations’ recognition that it is funding that
underpins inequalities in the first place – whoever
holds the money, holds the power.
What is clear, from these headline categorisations
is that they are less frequently occurring in the
areas of internal policy and governance. Contrary
to the other areas of programming, improved
funding and use of language and stereotyping,
these might be considered more foundational, in
that they are rolled out through entire organisa-
tions and partnerships – rather than tested within
or confined to particular programmes. For NN-
GOs, for example, taking action against unequal
decision-making in programming is the most
common action taken (73%), but this drops to
62% and 60% of NNGOs when it comes to taking
action against unequal decision-making in policy
and internal governance, respectively. This find-
ing is matched by the document analysis, which
explored the range of documented actions and
evaluations to reveal that where actions are taking
place they are largely at the programmatic level.
Clear, too, is that looking underneath these broad
categorisations, where actions are being taken to
rectify power imbalances, the actions being tak-
en are the first steps on this ladder. That means,
while some tangible actions may be taken in the
right direction, we saw few examples where imbal-
ances were being equalised or turned around.
In the area of policy, for example, more NN-
GOs (27%) reported consulting their partners
in policy-making, with only half of this number
(15%) going further to move towards equal de-
cision-making. An even smaller 4% of NNGOs
reported that their partners are now in the lead.
Where SNGOs report actions to tackle inequal-
ities in policy, they are largely concentrated on
their role of promoting conversations around
power and the importance of equal partnerships
(20% of SNGOs).
Actions taken within the realm of programming
have gone notably further, with only 10% of NN-
GOs suggesting that they have ‘consulted’ with
their SNGO counterparts and 44% highlighting
that they have moved towards co-creation in pro-
gramme strategy and design. 12% also report the
highest level of decentralisation of power in this
area, that of partner-led programming. Here it
is important to acknowledge that programmatic
decision-making takes place within the overall
framework of the underlying policy framework.
Thus, SNGOs are becoming more powerful at the
programmatic level, yet remain constrained in
their ability to influence the overall framework in
Are we going far enough?
46 Where do we go from here?
which the programmes must take place (cf. Elbers
& Schulpen, 2011).
But when we compare how NNGO responses
align with SNGO responses, there are quite big
differences in the proportion of organisations
reporting these activities. For example, in compar-
ison with 80% of NNGOs reporting undertaking
such activities, only 49% of SNGOs reported
similarly. And while nearly 45% of NNGOs report
some level of partner involvement or co-creation
of programme, this drops to only one-quarter
(26%) of SNGOs.
This pattern of fewer SNGOs reporting the same
level of activity along each dimension in the pro-
gramme is repeated for most activities in this
dimension. The exception to this is amongst
the least radical actions where SNGOs report a
greater frequency of action than NNGOs, namely
in strengthening the capacity of partners and ac-
knowledging Southern knowledge and priorities.
Likewise, while funding is the area in which most
activity is taking place, these actions are concen-
trated heavily on supporting partners to build
their local fundraising capacity (35 and 38% of
NNGOs and SNGOs reported such actions, re-
spectively). The focus, in this sense, is creating
new forms of revenue locally that offer greater au-
tonomy and flexibility rather than taking remedial
action on the large volumes of funding intermedi-
ated through NNGOs and the heavy conditional-
ities placed upon these. This is not to undermine
this as a valuable investment for NNGOs to make
in their partnership. Building strength in local
fundraising capacity is an area in which NNGOs
can support an activity outside of their own specif-
ic partnership and operation that in the long-term
begins to dismantle systemic inequalities. Com-
munity philanthropy is right at the heart of the
Global Fund for Community Foundation’s Shift
the Power movement.
If we add up activities that show ‘improved’ fund-
ing practices within partnerships, then we can
see that only around 37% of NNGOs and 26% of
SNGOs report activities in the areas of more flex-
ible, unconditional, core funding or participatory
grant-making provision. While these numbers
are not insignificant, they do indicate a misalign-
ment between the activities being taken and the
well-identified priority of both NNGOs and SN-
GOs towards improving funding and finance in
ways that offer SNGOs better volumes and terms
of funding.
What is holding us back?
As we move towards the end of the report, the
rich landscape of challenges it reveals lays bare
the concerns, fear and fatigue that NGOs are fac-
ing within the current landscape. Actors in both
the North and South are aware that progress is
slower than they would like, and this is exacerbat-
ed by the continuing demands across the sector
(and particularly those actors in the North) to
move beyond rhetoric towards greater concrete
action(s). At the root of the complexity of these
changes processes is that there are both internal
(to particular partnerships and relationships) and
external barriers to progress.
Nearly all organisations reported multiple barri-
ers to progress. Internally, questions of time and
resources (namely, where to find them) to invest
in these activities, of what to do and how to do it
(given a lack of tangible ‘best practice’ emerging
in the sector), and even of institutional resilience
to change, highlighting the importance of not
making assumptions about the homogeneity of
organisations and recognising the different levels
of ‘buy-in’ for agendas to shift power by depart-
ment and/or individual staff member(s). Fear is
also a clearly identifiable barrier for both NNGOs
and SNGOs – around what to do, how to ap-
8. Conclusions & discussion 47
proach it, and even (especially for NNGOs) fear
of success and what this would ultimately imply
for their power, position, and survival.
There is one important distinction between the
challenges faced by NNGOs and SNGOs. NN-
GOs indicate that the biggest obstacle(s) to prog-
ress within this sphere is beyond the confines of
their relationship (thus excusing them from a lack
of progress), but responses from SNGOs hold
up a mirror to the limits of their willingness and
ability to rebalance power inequalities. There is,
this suggests, a bigger role for them to play as
conscientious partners even within the confines
of a highly unequal system.
Not only did SNGOs highlight their NNGO part-
ners as giving them limited room for manoeuvre
as a major barrier, they also highlight, more fre-
quently than NNGOs, the fact that ‘partners are
not listening’, that they hold different interests to
their partners, and that their agenda to shift pow-
er is likely to be co-opted by their more powerful
partners. As an interviewee stated:
‘[Global North actors] are the ones who hold
the power, so they have to relinquish power,
they have to decolonise, but slightly ironically,
they are in danger of colonising the conversa-
tion about decolonising’.
Interview NNGO, 11-11-2022
Looking across these questions, responses and
complementary document analysis, it is clear
that the issue of partnership – and of how NN-
GOs can be ‘a good partner’ – should be part
of any ambition to works towards a new power
balance between the Global South and North. For
many respondents, their vision of ‘being a good
partner’ echoes long-standing ideas concerning
‘accompaniment’, reflecting a relational approach
where partners walk together to support each oth-
er on the basis of solidarity, humility and mutual
respect. One NNGO respondent described this
nicely as the process of ‘[b]eing on a journey to-
gether towards change, understanding how north-
ern NGOs can best support’. Such sentiments
were also supported by Southern respondents.
As one explained, ‘we need ‘[m]ore interpersonal
engagement and exchange which leads to under-
standing and solidarity’ (Interview SNGO, 13-06-
2022).
The study also makes clear that ‘being a good
partner’ implies being able and willing to listen
and trust one another and invest in dialogue.
For Northern organisations, this requires taking
the time to learn Southern NGOs’ priorities and
asking them which support roles they want to see
from their Northern counterparts (see also van
Wessel et al., 2023). As explained by a respon-
dent, we need, ‘[m]ore (real!) dialogue at all levels
(donors, Northern orgs, Southern orgs, stake-
holders) for more understanding and insight in
each other’s realities, needs and interests before
designing programs, frameworks, subsidy instru-
ments etc’.
The above ideas surrounding the importance of
better partnerships are certainly not new, but date
back to the 1980s (cf. Aagaard & Trykker, 2019;
Elbers & Schulpen, 2013). That is precisely why
it is highly doubtful that a renewed ambition of
working towards becoming ‘good partners’ will
be sufficient. If that was the solution, it is reason-
able to assume that things would have already
changed a long time ago.
Moving on from individual partnerships, can we
ensure that individual improvements feed into a
broader movement rooted in the Southern pri-
orities and positioning, so that a move towards
systemic change can occur simultaneously? We
conclude by reflecting on this critical question.
48 Where do we go from here?
Where do we go from here? Increasing momentum towards
systemic change
For Northern organisations, the above raises the
important question of whether it is ultimately
enough to limit their actions and activities aimed
at shifting power to within their own organisation.
In other words, is being a ‘good partner’ suffi-
cient? We can explore this question a bit more
closely with a follow up question. Would the sum
of all Northern individual efforts to become good
partners result in a true reconfiguration of the ex-
isting North-South power relation?
The point here is certainly not to diminish the im-
portance of Northern efforts to change their own
practices. Besides the enormous challenge that
actions to shift power entail for the Global North,
the more Northern NGOs that move towards
more participatory, less restricted forms of proj-
ect-based funding, the better.
However, for many (Southern) respondents,
changing individual partnerships would be very
much welcome, yet ultimately insufficient. To
address the root causes of the prevailing power
imbalances in the aid system, it is essential that
Southern organisations can take control and not
just be ‘given’ new powers (which can always be
taken away). Or as explained by a respondent:
‘Majority world [Global South] organisations
should be in the lead in decision-making,
the aid system is designed for Minority world
(Global North) organisations. It needs to be
redesigned for Majority world organisations’.
If we start from the normative ideal that the glob-
al aid system should be characterised by equal
North-South power relations, a complete reversal
of power between NNGOs and SNGOs is also
undesirable as it means a reversal - and thus con-
tinuation - of power imbalances. But then still a
change is required that allows Southern organisa-
tions and voices to take the lead.
Such fundamental changes can only occur when
the broader system changes. This implies revis-
ing the rules and regulations that make up the
broader framework in which aid actors operate.
Here it relates to questions about who sets agen-
das and makes key decisions, how resources are
distributed, and how actors are held accountable.
These systemic changes require change across a
broad array of actors. This is an important lesson
for Southern and Northern NGOs alike to not
only look internally at what they are doing and
what they can do better within their organisations
and relationships, but to also work collectively to
support advocacy efforts to push in the direction
of deeper, more transformative and Southern-led
change.
It also explicitly implies a change agenda and
responsibility for institutional donors. If we con-
clude that the rules and regulations that make up
the global aid system need to change to arrive at a
more balanced power relation, and currently only
powerful actors are within a position to change
them, institutional donors cannot stay out of the
loop.
The necessity of taking action beyond individu-
al organisational change is perhaps one of the
stand-out findings from this research; drawing
across the different survey questions, interviews
and case studies reveals that although Northern
and Southern organisations highlight similar
themes with regard to addressing power imbal-
ances, they highlight a different scale of change.
Northern organisations tend to prioritise actions
that change their existing organisational practices
and partnerships, while Southern organisations
emphasise actions that imply broader system
change. Opinions vary on what that change would
look like exactly, but it would entail a global mind-
set change accompanied by an aid architecture
that centres Southern voices and organisations
while channelling a much greater volume of funds
8. Conclusions & discussion 49
directly to SNGOs (rather than having funds inter-
mediated through NNGOs).
Distinguishing between these two arenas of ac-
tion (within partnerships and within global sys-
tems and structures) highlights why getting the
terminology right is so important. Different terms
imply different types of actions and the scope of
the envisaged change. For example, localisation
demands little systemic change while decolonisa-
tion is by definition a (political) process of funda-
mental restructuring that system.
Nearly half of Northern NGOs highlighted that
they used a mixture of the terms to describe their
activities in this area: locally-led development,
localisation, shift the power and decolonisation.
For NNGOs that picked one terminology (17%),
they were most comfortable with the language of
global policy stakeholders, i.e. localisation, a term
that firmly positions itself in the Global North
as a process of giving away a greater volume of
support or finance to Global South actors – but
critically it does not ask for radical or fundamental
change in the system or a restructuring of who
holds the power.
In contrast, the majority (one-third) of Southern
NGOs were most likely to use the language of
locally-led development when they spoke about
taking action against power imbalances. This asks
for a deeper realignment of power and privilege
across the aid chain, moving Southern NGOs
away from being sub-contractors and agents of
Northern NGOs to a position in which they are
taking the lead across all strategic and opera-
tional areas. This does not just shift funding, but
also power, autonomy and leadership away from
Northern NGOs. It is thus representative of deep-
er political action. While 30% of SNGOs used a
mixture of these terms, only one in ten used the
word ‘localisation’; this is not a term that has res-
onance and traction within Southern NGOs.
At the top of this political spectrum is the end
goal of decolonisation. As Adeso’s Degan Ali
highlighted in a 2023 webinar on ‘Are we really
Shifting the Power?’, in this the ultimate end
goal is the dismantling of unequal systems and
structures within and beyond the aid system’ (Ali,
2023). There is a role in this for every actor, in-
cluding Northern NGOs and institutional donors,
in displaying real solidarity and allyship with the
Early on in this report we highlighted our discomfort at the terminology of North and South NGOs,
but our inability to find a language that we were happy with. As we moved towards the final stages
of our analysis and write-up one alternative terminology did stand out, that of shifting away from
geographic descriptors towards a language rooted in an organisations’ position in the aid chain. In
doing so ‘Northern NGOs’ would become ‘Intermediary NGOs’ (or INGOs, an acronym that is al-
ready in popular parlance) while ‘Southern NGOs’ would simply become ‘NGOs’. One advantage of
this terminology would be that as new dynamics are emerging in the global landscape – such as the
rise of larger NGOs in the Global South beginning to play new roles in the system – their changing
positioning can be captured in this hierarchy as they move from NGOs to Intermediary NGOs. But
this same reason is why, ultimately, we decided against using this, simply because replacing one hi-
erarchy with another brings its own problems. Box 6 does indicate that this trend is something that
we must be intimately aware of moving forwards – are we shifting power, or shifting the problem in
the way these processes are unfolding? – but key here was that we cannot say that a new ‘Intermedi-
ary NGO’ rising in the Global South is the same comparatively or analytically without further consul-
tation and research.
Box 7 | Terminology of NNGO/SNGO
50 Where do we go from here?
Global South by confronting the inequalities of the
aid system and speaking out. This requires action
not only within an organisation’s partnerships but
to join forces and support – without driving or
co-opting – Southern demands and visions for a
more just future.
Alan Fowler (1993) has famously used the meta-
phor of an onion in his formative work on NGOs
and their strategies. In discussing progress to-
wards a genuine shift in power we find ourselves
reversing this. That is, we are no longer looking at
the process of NGOs building ‘onion-rings’ out-
wards in order to build their success and impact
through successive layers of strategic operations
and actions. Instead we are looking inwards, at
peeling back all of these layers through which
behaviours, mindsets and power dynamics have
become so ingrained and destructive. To take the
onion analogy further, perhaps it is not until our
cuts reach the onion’s inner core – when the tears
come – that we can achieve a true power shift.
And that core has to be represented by genuine
Southern leadership.
51 References
Aagaard, P. & S.E. Trykker (2019). The road to
partnerships in practice: Practical wisdom as
an alternative to managerialism in NGO part-
nerships. In: Development Policy Review 38: 266-
282.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/
dpr.12427
Akankwatsa, P. (2021, February 8). Behind DGF’s
suspension. In: The Independent.
www.independent.co.ug/behind-dgfs-suspen-
sion
Ali, D. (2023). Are we really ‘Shifting Power’ in the
aid sector? Webinar hosted by Christian Aid, 28th
June
www.christianaid.org.uk/news/policy/are-we-re-
ally-shifting-power-aid-sector
Baguios, A., King, M., Martins, A., & Pinnington,
R. (2021). Are we there yet? Localisation as the
journey towards locally led practice: models, ap-
proaches and challenges. London, ODI.
cdn.odi.org/media/documents/ODI-SH-Locali-
sation- Report-Oct21-Proof06.pdf.
Banks, N. & D. Brockington (2020). Growth and
change in Britain’s development NGO sector
(2009-2015). in: Development in Practice 30(6):
706-721.
www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/09614
524.2020.1801587?needAccess=true&role=but-
ton
Bond. (2021). Catalysing locally-led development in
the UK aid system. London, Bond.
www.bond.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/
03/catalysing_locally_led_ development_in_
the_uk_aid_system.pdf
Elbers, W. (2012). The Partnership paradox - princi-
ples and practice in North-South NGO
relations. Nijmegen, CAOS/Radboud University
Elbers, W. & L. Schulpen (2011). Decision-making
in partnerships for development: Explaining the
Influence of Local Partners. In: Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly 40(5): 795-812.
journals.sagepub.com/doi epub/10.1177/089
9764010366304
Elbers, W. & L. Schulpen (2013). Corridors of
power: The institutional design of north-south
NGO partnerships. In: VOLUNTAS: Internation-
al Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organiza-
tions 24(1): 48-67.
doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9332-7
Fowler, A. (1993). Non-Governmental Organiza-
tions as agents of democratization: an African
perspective. In: Journal of International Develop-
ment 5(3): 325-339.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/
jid.3380050308
Hodgson, J. (2020). Disrupting and democratis-
ing development: Community philanthropy as
theory and practice. In: Gender & Development
28(1): 99-116.
Humentum (2022). Breaking the Starvation Cycle:
How International Funders can stop trapping their
grantees in the starvation cycle and start building
their resilience. Humentum.
humentum.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/
Humentum-ACR-Research-Report-FINAL.pdf.
Kapazoglou, M. (2021). Building forward more
inclusively. Report on the conference hosted by
INCLUDE 8-16 June 2021, Leiden, INCLUDE
Knowledge Platform: 16.
includeplatform.net/wp-content/uploads/2021
/08/INCLUDE-2021-Conference-report-Build-
ing-forward-more-inclusively-Final-SQ.pdf
Matthews, D. (2022). Localization, decolonizing
and #ShiftThePower; are we saying the same
thing?
shiftthepower.org/2022/06/14/localization-de-
colonizing-and-shiftthepower-are-we-saying-
the-same-thing
Partos (2022). Dream paper: Shift the Power. Am-
sterdam, Partos. www.partos.nl/wp-content/
uploads/2022/01/Partos-Dreampaper-Shift-
the-Power-v7.pdf
Schulpen, L. & L. van Kempen (2020). Does ‘the’
Dutch INGO exist? Mapping a decade of finan-
cial and organisational change. In: Development
in Practice 30(6): 722-737.
www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/09614
524.2020.1801588?needAccess=true&role=but-
ton
References
52 Where do we go from here?
WACSI (2021). Fostering Equitable North-South
Civil Society Partnerships: Voices from the South,
West Africa Civil Society Institute and Rights Co-
Lab.
globalfundcommunityfoundations.org/wp-con-
tent/uploads/2021/03/RINGO-RESEARCH-RE-
PORT-FINAL-V-compressed.pdf
van Wessel, M., T. Kontinen & J.N. Bawole
(2023). Reimagining Civil Society Collaborations
in Development: Starting from the South. Taylor
& Francis.
Appendix 53
Mixed methods were necessary to meeting both
sides of our research aims and objectives. To
map the scope and breadth of shift the power
initiatives being undertaken, a global survey ex-
plored people’s perspectives on shift the power
and locally-led initiatives, including what is being
done and what is needed to be done. To provide
more detailed insight into these trends and prac-
tices, we also undertook ‘deep dives’ into ideas,
processes, outcomes and future prospectives via
interviews with a selection of NGOs in Europe,
Ghana and Uganda. Finally, we conducted three
case studies of initiatives aimed at shifting power
in our two case study contexts – Ghana and Ugan-
da.
Survey
The research team developed a survey consisting
of four substantive sections, made accessible on-
line in English, French and Spanish. We dissemi-
nated this widely and repeatedly through diverse
social media channels, our social networks and
the mailing lists of core organisers and actors in
this field across the Global North and South. This
included, for example, WACSI in Ghana, Partos
in the Netherlands, the Uganda National NGO
Forum in Uganda and Bond and the Small Inter-
national Development Charities Network in the
UK. The survey was open for four weeks during
November-December 2022, attracting a total of
830 respondents who started the survey.
Section 1 explored our respondents’ background
data (e.g., budget, focus field, sector, gender) (see
Appendix 2 for an overview). These data serve
as explanatory variables but also ensured that
respondents met our study requirements. With
our intention to understand the ideas and actions
towards balancing power relations between devel-
opment organisations (hereafter, NGOs) across
the Global South and Global North, it was logical
to select only respondents from those NGOs that
operate within such relations; they are, by defini-
tion, the ones with first-hand knowledge and expe-
rience of these power imbalances.
It was important to us that only one question-
naire was utilised for all respondents to answer
the same set of questions. These questions also
enabled us to categorise organisations in order to
capture diversity in the opinions and experienc-
es of NGOs across the Global North and South.
Identifiers from these initial scoping questions
allowed us to categorise organisations by geogra-
phy and to understand diversity along this indica-
tor.
Section 2 explored respondents’ familiarity with
popular terminologies around actions that seek to
tackle power imbalances and their underpinnings
(i.e. locally-led development, localisation, decol-
onisation and Shift the Power). It also explored
their views on power imbalances between North-
ern and Southern development organisations – in
general, and more specifically with regards to their
own specific relationships with NGOs in other
parts of the world.
Section 3 shifted focus towards the actual actions
undertaken or experienced by our respondents.
What are these actions and which do they con-
sider most important? Who was the main driver
of such actions and at what pace were they being
discussed, adopted and implemented?
Section 4 continued to explore these actions,
zooming in on possible evaluations of their effects
and on the barriers that they and their partner
organisations experienced in pursuing actions to
change power relations.
While 830 started to fill out our survey, not all par-
ticipants filled out the survey in its entirety. This
may have been due to internet connectivity issues
APPENDIX 1
Full methodology
Where do we go from here? 54
(answers could not be saved to return to) or the
survey length. All respondents finalising Section 2
were included in the analysis; these respondents
answered core questions around the equality of
power relations and the main sources of power
imbalances and it was important that we captured
these. This gave us a total of 458 respondents, of
which 267 reached the final section of the survey.
A Sounding Board has been a critical support to
the research team and process. As part of Partos’s
broader ‘Shift the Power Lab 2.0’ community of
practice that funds six ‘actions’ in support of the
Shift the Power movement, Partos members and
the broader interested global community were
invited to join our Sounding Board to support,
give input into, and be kept informed about this
research. Thirty members from a diverse range of
organisations and countries joined this Sounding
Board. We met three times at key stages through
which their advice and constructive criticism
could best inform the research. Firstly, in the early
stages of research design; secondly, as the survey
questionnaire was being developed and finalised;
and thirdly, to discuss the early analysis of sur-
vey findings before finalising the report. Those
who could not attend these meetings could feed
back their thoughts on the outputs we shared by
email. Across all three phases we are grateful for
their time and critical feedback in encouraging
us, challenging us, and pointing us in important
directions.
We use descriptive statistics to paint a rich map of
respondents’ thoughts regarding and experiences
of power imbalances across the North and South,
alongside the initiatives that they are taking to
tackle these. It is important to discuss briefly the
North-South dichotomy across which our analysis
takes place. While deeply aware that power im-
balances take place at different levels, in diverse
ways, and in accumulated, intersectional patterns,
at the heart of discussions around localisation, lo-
cally-led development and ‘shift the power’ are the
structural inequalities in power and resources be-
tween NGOs across the Global North and South.
In this broad characterisation, the concentration
of power and resources in the Global North has
led NGOs here to dominate development agen-
das and how they are monitored and evaluated, as
well as language and terminologies around con-
cepts of ‘development’ and change. This has had
severe implications on the autonomy of NGOs
located in the Global South, despite their closer
proximity to the countries and populations in
which these processes of change take place.
Methodologically we captured this geographic
difference between development NGOs from the
Global North (whether headquartered in the Glob-
al North or part of their broader ‘family’ of global
offices) and development NGOs from the Global
South through three survey questions in Section
1.
Firstly, we asked respondents what country their
organisation is headquartered in. Countries be-
longing to the DAC list of ODA recipients 2022-
2023 are taken as ‘Global South’ organisations
and the corresponding respondents as SNGOs
(Southern NGOs). All others are marked as NN-
GOs (Northern NGOs). There were 29 cases in
which respondents did not report their organisa-
tion’s headquarter country. Here we relied on a
combination of two questions to identify whether
this was a ‘Southern’ or ‘Northern’ NGO. These
were Questions 4 (whether the office the respon-
dents is working in is based in the Global South
or Global North) and 5 (whether that office is part
of an international family or brand of organisa-
tions). If a respondent marked these two answers
as ‘Global South’ and ‘No’, respectively they were
considered SNGOs; if they answered these ques-
tions as ‘Global South’ and ‘Yes’ they were consid-
ered an NNGO.
Language is not neutral and we are aware of the
pejorative connotations at play in this terminology
of ‘North’ and ‘South’ when it comes to differen-
tiating between NGOs. The terminology, at best,
represents a hierarchy of privilege and, at worst,
can be accompanied by perceptions or assump-
tions around effectiveness or legitimacy that we
Appendix 55
do not intend. Yet given the explicit comparative
analysis of our respondents across these geogra-
phies means that we have not yet found an alter-
native language that we are happy with.
Interviews
As an initial exploration of the knowledge and
initiatives of shift the power, 33 semi-structured
in-depth interviews were conducted – 11 in Gha-
na, 10 in Uganda, and 12 in Western Europe (i.e.,
the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Belgium, and
Germany). The exploratory interviews demonstrate
the prevalence of discussions about shift the pow-
er, which actors are involved in these discussions,
and what are considered the most central ele-
ments of changing power relations.
The sample in Ghana was made up of 10 local
CSOs of different sizes and scope (i.e., nation-
al, regional, district as well as CSO networks), 1
INGOs and 1 academic. On the other hand, in
Uganda, 6 local CSOs and 4 INGOs were selected.
Interviewees were predominantly part of senior
management or were programme leaders of pro-
grammes that aim to address power relations.
The sample in Europe was made up of networks
to get a sector perspective rather than that of an
individual organisation’s actions. Interviewees
were also mainly part of senior management or
are leaders of programmes that aim to address
power relations. Geographically, the organisations
are headquartered in Western Europe – the United
Kingdom, Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany.
The selection of interviewees was done through
purposive sampling of actors with knowledge and
experience with shifting power relations using
the authors’ own network, that of the Sounding
Board, and through the assistance of local CSOs
and INGOs. For instance, in the context of Ghana,
STAR Ghana Foundation and Plan International
Ghana provided access to their implementing
partners. Interviewees were contacted through
email and subsequent interviews were conducted
using virtual platforms (e.g., Microsoft Teams
and Zoom) and face-to-face. The interviews in
Ghana were conducted using a mixture of virtual
and face-to-face while that of Western Europe was
mainly through virtual means. On the other hand,
the interviews in Uganda were conducted through
face-to-face interactions. The interviews lasted
approximately one hour each. All interviews were
recorded with the informed consent of the partic-
ipants and were later transcribed for analysis. The
interviews were recorded using Microsoft Teams
or a recorder and transcription was done by Top
Transcriptions, located in South Africa. The re-
trieved data was securely stored with Wageningen
University & Research. Finally, the interviews were
analysed on NVivo, using open coding followed by
the development of a typology. An overview of the
initial interviews can be found on the next page.
Case studies
In addition to the survey, document analysis, and
initial interview, case studies were conducted to
provide more detailed insight into trends and
practices, taking a ‘deep dive’ into processes and
outcomes of three programmes in two national
contexts – Uganda and Ghana. For each of the
case studies a Memorandum of Understanding
was drawn up and agreed upon.
In Uganda, the Empowering Local and National
Humanitarian Actors (ELNHA) programme was
examined. This initiative sought to reduce power
inequalities among actors in the provision of hu-
manitarian response, the project was implement-
ed by Oxfam Uganda. The selection was purposive
based on the information availed from SNGOs
interviewed during the initial exploration. These
pointed to ELNHA as revelatory, a unique example
of an intervention in place to reduce power dif-
ferentials between local and international actors
in Uganda. The ELNHA programme is led by an
NNGO; Oxfam Uganda. The data was collected
through eight in-depth semi-structured interviews
with key informants that were part of the project.
Five interviews were with the partners and three
with Oxfam, the lead organisation. For the ELNHA
project, the Head of Programmes, Partnership Co-
ordinator, and Programme Manager, and Co-ordi-
nator were interviewed along with partners of the
project. The interviews were conducted between
December and March 2023. These were comple-
Where do we go from here? 56
Type of organisation Role in organisation Date
Interviews in Western Europe
SNGO Director 28-11-22
NNGO Network Coordinator Decolonisation 10-11-22
NNGO Network Director of International Operations 13-10-22
NNGO Network 1. Funding Advisor; 2. Funding Advisor 18-11-22
NNGO Network Regional Coordinator 02-12-22
Small NNGO Network Executive Director 13-10-22
NNGO Network Manager Learning and Innovation 09-11-22
NNGO CEO 11-11-22
Small NNGO Network 1. Working Group Member; 2. Development Consultant 14-10-22
NNGO Network Programme Co-ordinator 21-11-22
NNGO Network Policy Advisor 25-10-22
Small NNGO Director 25-11-22
Interviews in Ghana
SNGO Head, Capacity Development 03-10-22
SNGO Executive Director 13-10-22
SNGO Senior Research Analyst 14-10-22
SNGO Executive Director 14-10-22
SNGO Executive Director 19-10-22
SNGO Executive Director 24-10-22
SNGO Programme Manager 24-10-22
SNGO Head of Programmes 24-11-22
SNGO Executive Director 01-11-22
NNGO Programme Manager 12-11-22
Academic Institution Lecturer 06-12-22
Interviews in Uganda
SNGO Executive Director 07-10-22
SNGO Research And Advocacy Coordinator 07-10-22
NNGO Country Director 26-10-22
NNGO Country Director 21-10-22
NNGO Country Director 19-10-22
SNGO Executive Director 11-10-22
SNGO Executive Director 11-10-22
SNGO Executive Director 23-09-22
NNGO Country Director 29-11-22
SNGO 1. Head; 2. Deputy Programme and learning Manager 10-11-22
Overview of initial exploratory interviews
Appendix 57
mented with a review of secondary evidence in-
cluding project documents, performance reports,
and evaluation.
In Ghana, a multiple case-study design was adopt-
ed examining the Women’s Voice and Leadership
(WVL) Programme by Plan International-Ghana
and the Giving for Change (GfC) Programme by
STAR -Ghana Foundation. These two initiatives
were purposively selected for several reasons.
First, based on initial in-depth interviews conduct-
ed with key informants in the Ghanaian context, it
became evident that these initiatives are among
the most prominent and perhaps promising initia-
tives that have the objective to contribute to shift-
ing the power between INGOs and local CSOs as
well as among CSOs who act as ‘donors’ and their
partners. between SNGOs and NNGOs. Second,
both initiatives sought to ‘do development differ-
ently’ by changing power relations with partners.
Third, the cases were also selected based on their
differences in scope and operations. For instance,
the WVL is led by Plan International Ghana to-
gether with two national CSOs (i.e., NETRIGHT
and WiLDAF) while the GfC is implemented by
STAR Ghana as an anchor institution with WACSI
being a strategic partner.
In Ghana, data collection was through semi-struc-
tured interviews with the programmes team and
partners of the WVL and the GfC between March
and June 2023. For the WVL and GfC, eight and
four interviews were conducted respectively. In
total, 12 interviews were conducted for the case
studies in Ghana. In both case studies, half of the
interviewees were with partners and half with the
lead organisations. For the WVL project, the Proj-
ect Lead, Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist,
Sub-Grant Management Specialist and Finance
Officer were interviewed. On the other hand, the
Head of Programmes and Project Officer of the
GfC were also interviewed. The WVL and the GfC
project team were interviewed more than once
during the data collection exercise. In addition, we
also conducted in-depth interviews with the Exec-
utive Directors of partner organisations for both
initiatives. We chose to speak to the Executive
Directors of the partner organisations because
they were directly involved in the implementation
of the programmes and were in the best position
to provide valuable insights for the study. In addi-
tion, the case studies in Ghana were complement-
ed with a review of secondary evidence including
project documents such as operations reports,
progress and performance reports, inception and
mid-year reports as well as annual reports.
To streamline results, two sets of interview guides
were designed for the case studies in both Ugan-
da and Ghana. The design of the guides was in-
formed by the research questions underpinning
this study. The discussions focused on issues
such as background information about the pro-
gramme, elements of shift the power including
specific initiatives to change power imbalances,
approach to programme implementation, nature
of relationships, reporting requirements and
funding arrangements, flexibility and room for
manoeuvring within the programme in addition to
challenges and lessons learnt.
For all case studies in Ghana and Uganda, the
interviews were conducted using both face-to-
face interactions and virtual methods depending
on the preference of the respondents. The length
of the interviews ranged from 60 minutes to 120
minutes. All interviews were recorded with the in-
formed consent of the respondents. The retrieved
data was securely stored on the University of Wa-
geningen’s Microsoft Team environment. The in-
terviews were transcribed for further analysis. The
interviews were analysed on NVivo using thematic
and discourse analysis. An overview of the initial
and case study interviewees can be found on the
next page.
Where do we go from here? 58
Organisation Role in organisation Date
Interviews ELNHA
Oxfam Uganda Head of programmes 24-05-23
Oxfam Uganda Partnership Coordinator 06-04-23
Oxfam Uganda Program Manager 12-04-23
Project partner 1 Co-ordinator 03-04-23
Project partner 2 Chairperson 28-03-23
Project partner 3 Director 30-03-23
Project partner 4 Director 14-04-23
Project partner 5 Advocacy Coordinator 07-04-23
Interviews WVL
Plan International, Ghana Project Lead, WVL 21-04-23
Plan International, Ghana Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist, WVL 21-04-23
Plan International, Ghana Sub-Grant Management Specialist 21-04-23
Plan International, Ghana Finance Manager 21-04-23
Project Partner 1 Executive Director 12-05-23
Project Partner 2 Executive Director 14-05-23
Project Partner 3 Executive Director 19-05-23
Project Partner 4 Executive Director 18-05-23
Interviews in GfC
STAR Ghana Foundation Head of Programmes 14-05-23
STAR Ghana Foundation Programme Officer, GfC 14-05-23
Project Partner 1 Co-Founder 12-05-23
Project Partner 2 Executive Director 13-06-23
Overview of case study interviews
Appendix 59
Country of origin
Our survey achieved a broad global reach across
55 countries (Figure 1). This has been noticeably
influenced by the research team’s social networks.
Our global research team has researchers in Gha-
na (2), the Netherlands (4), Uganda (2) and the
United Kingdom (1) and in all four countries we
could draw upon our own networks and that of
core associations and umbrella organisations at
the national level.
Among NNGO respondents we had responses
from 247 NNGOs headquartered in 19 different
countries, ranging from Australia to the United
States. Most came from European countries, in
particular from the Netherlands (32%) and the
United Kingdom (22.7%). Among our 211 SNGO
respondents we had representation from 36 differ-
ent countries, including from across Africa, Latin
America and Asia. Here, too, our respondents
were heavily concentrated in our two case study
countries, Ghana (32.7%) and Uganda (21.8%).
Levels, sectors and fields
Respondents clearly show that the idea of thinking
about NNGOs as working at an international and
SNGOs at a local level, is outdated (if it ever exist-
ed) (see Figure 2). Although the international level
is still central for INGOs, only 21% of SNGOs
operate nationally and internationally.
APPENDIX 2
Background of survey respondents
Figure 1 | Countries in which respondent’s NGOs are headquartered, with division between NNGOs
(red) and SNGOs (blue) (n=426).*
Source: Own calculations based on the survey.
* Not for all 247 NNGOs and 211 SNGOs the specific headquarter country is known.
Where do we go from here? 60
Looking at basic sectoral distinctions, Figure 3
shows that the vast majority of NGOs are in the
broader sector of ‘development’; the humani-
tarian sector comes second and peacebuilding
third. Still, a substantial number of respondents
are active in the peacebuilding sector, particularly
among SNGOs. The data also clearly indicate that
many organisations combine sectors. More than
a quarter of NNGOs and SNGOs are active in two
sectors (27.5% and 26.9% respectively) and just
under one-fifth operate in all three (17.8% and
19.3%, respectively).
The most common activity that surveyed NGOs
are engaged in is capacity strengthening (Figure
4). 85% of SNGOs and 90% of NNGOs are active
in this field. Advocacy comes a close second, with
nearly 80% of organisations engaged in these
activities in both North and South. Service deliv-
ery is the smallest field of action, but still 57% of
SNGOs and 63.5% of NNGOs are active in this.
Most organisations combine fields here, too. Only
around 10% organisations in either geography
restricts itself to one field of action. This mix of
fields is also clear from the 112 respondents who
ticked ‘other’: only seven did not tick any of the
first three named fields. ‘Other’ in most cases
referred to more specific fields such as research,
education or ‘disability inclusion’.
Figure 2 | Level of operation, with division between NNGOs and SNGOs, in % (n=419).
•
0,0
•
10,0
•
20,0
•
30,0
•
40,0
•
50,0
•
60,0
•
70,0
•
80,0
•
90,0
•
100,0
Local/community
District/province
National
International
Source: Own calculations based on the survey.
100,0
80,0
60,0
40,0
20,0
0,0
100,0
80,0
60,0
40,0
20,0
0,0
NNGOs (n=231) SNGOs (n=184) NNGOs (n=233) SNGOs (n=183)
Development
sector
Humanitarian
sector
Peacebuilding
sector
Advocacy Service
delivery
Capacity
strenghtening
Other
Figure 3 | Sector of activity, with division between
NNGOs and SNGOs, in % (n=415).
Figure 4 | Fields, with division between NNGOs
and SNGOs, in % (n=416).
Source: Own calculations based on the survey.NNGOs (n=233) SNGOs (n=186)
Appendix 61
Budgets
Figure 5 shows the vast differences in budgets for
SNGOs and NNGOs in favour of the latter. This
is unsurprising, given that the concentration of
finances in the Global North is an important back-
ground factor in the inequalities that underpin our
survey and debates and actions around ‘shifting
power’. Only one in ten surveyed SNGOs has an
annual budget of over US$5 million, while nearly
half of surveyed NNGOs do.
Beyond this our sample also illustrates the diver-
sity of NGOs by size across these different budget
categories in both the Global North and South,
with incomes ranging from less than $5,000 a
year right up to this. If we group respondents into
three broad income categories of small (below
US$200,000), medium (between US$200,000 and
US$1 million) or big (above US$1 million), the
majority of NNGOs (70.7%) would be categorised
as ‘big’. In contrast, only 21.2% of SNGOs would
be categorised as ‘big’. Forty percent of SNGOs
would be classified as ‘small’ and a further 33%
as ‘medium’.
Figure 18 | Preferred priorities for tackling power imbalances between NGOs in the Global North and
South, with division between NNGOs and SNGOs, in % (n=343).
•
0,0
•
10,0
•
20,0
•
30,0
•
40,0
•
50,0
•
60,0
Don’t know
More than US$ 5 million
US$ 1 million - US$ 4.999.999
US$ 500.000 - US$ 999.999
US$ 200.000 - US$ 499.999
US$ 50.000 - US$ 199.999
US$ 10.000 - US$ 49.999
US$ 5.000 - US$ 9.999
Less than US$ 5.000
NNGOs (n=232) SNGOs (n=184) Source: own calculations based on the survey.
Where do we go from here? 62
The Women’s Voice and Leadership (WVL) Project
is a five-year (2019 to 2024) global initiative that
identifies the potential and power of women and
girls to work towards promoting, upholding, and
protecting the human rights of women and young
girls. The project is implemented by Plan Interna-
tional Canada, and Plan International Ghana with
funding support from Global Affairs Canada. The
project was launched as part of Canada’s Fem-
inist International Policy (FIAP) which is based
on the core principle that gender equality is one
of the most effective ways to eradicate poverty.
A key informant interviewed noted that WVL is
being implemented across 30 countries and in
the Ghanaian context, Plan International Ghana
is leading the implementation, in collaboration
with two core national women’s rights networks
namely Women in Law and Development in Africa
(WiLDAF) and Network for Women’s Rights in
Ghana (NETRIGHT).
The overarching aim of WVL is to promote and
support the capacity strengthening of local and
regional Women’s Rights Organisations (WROs)
and movements to achieve gender equality, en-
hance the protection of women’s and girls’ rights,
and empower women and girls. According to a
key informant interviewed from Plan International
Ghana, WVL has the objective of ‘increasing the
voice of Women’s Rights Organisations (the vul-
nerable groups; usually women and girls) to ensure
that, they have a voice and empower them to do
their work more efficiently and effectively’ (Interview,
NNGO, 21-05-2023). The eventual outcome of
WVL is to ‘increased enjoyment of human rights by
women and girls and the advancement of gender
equality’ (Interview, NNGO, 21-05-2023). Three
broad intermediary outcomes are set out under
the project to achieve the long-term objective.
These include:
Improving management, sustainability, perfor-
mance, and innovation of local women’s rights
organisations
• Enhancing the delivery of quality services and
advocacy by women’s rights organisations to
advance gender quality.
• Enhancing collaboration, collective action and
innovation of local women’s rights organisa-
tions and platforms to advance gender equality
and the rights of women and girls.6
The main activities implemented under the WVL
include 1) strengthening organisational capacity,
and 2) provision of flexible funding for WVL to
implement their gender equality interventions. A
review of project documents shows that Plan In-
ternational Ghana is leading the implementation
of core project activities, procedures and process-
es for grant management, and disbursement and
management of funding support to grantees and
implementing partners. As part of the project,
Plan International Ghana is also responsible for
managing relationships with beneficiary partners
(WROs), government actors and other relevant in-
stitutional partners and implementing the gender
equality strategy and feminist Monitoring, Evalua-
tion and Learning system.
APPENDIX 3
Ghana case studies
Case Study 1: Background of theWomen’s Voice and Leadership
(WVL) Project
6 Plan International Canada (2022). Annual Project Results Report Year 3: Women’s Voice and Leadership - Ghana.
Appendix 63
Interviews conducted with the project staff of the
WVL revealed that the aspects of the shift the
power which WVL seeks to address are: 1) inclu-
sion of partners in governance structures and pro-
gramming, 2) strengthening organisational capac-
ity; 3) improving organisational management and
sustainability; and 4) provision of flexible funding.
Inclusion of partners in governance
structures in programming but not in
policy
According to the WVL project staff, there is some
level of representation of project partners at all
levels of governance or decision on the project.
For example, the two implementing partners NE-
TRIGHT and WiLDAF are represented at the high-
est decision-making on the WVL. They serve as
members of the Steering Committee while Global
Affairs Canada and the Ministry of Gender, Chil-
dren and Social Protection sere as Co-chairs. The
steering committee makes decisions on all mat-
ters relating to the project except for funding. The
two organisations contribute to the selection of
the WROs if the Project Management Team is in
doubt of the credibility of an applicant (i.e. WRO)
through consultation for verification. The final
decision-making in terms of funding rest in the
arms of Global Affairs Canada and the represen-
tatives of the Government of Canada. The WROs
(NETRIGHT and WiLDAF) shaped the capacity
building programme through self-assessments
of what they identified as their needs. These were
then developed by Plan in consultation with the
independent core trainers and coaches, and feed-
back was solicited from WROs. The two organisa-
tions also have the power in terms of designing
and implementing capacity building programmes
to strengthen the organisational capacity of the
WRO members. Furthermore, the NETRIGHT and
WiLDAF lead the lateral coordination of all WRO
partners bringing them together to define and de-
liver a common advocacy agenda, enabling them
to hold the national and local governments ac-
countable for Ghanaian women and girls’ rights.
The Project Management Team and independently
selected coaches and core trainers of the project
lead in the strategic direction and guidance of
project interventions, providing capacity building,
mentoring, and coaching to WROs, and advocacy
platforms for collective action. All these actions
are being undertaken to strengthen the capacity of
WRO members to better implement interventions
and programmes aimed at protecting the rights of
women and girls and achieve gender equality.
The project staff of WVL made it abundantly clear
at the project planning committee level, there
is recognition of the agency (ability to make the
best decisions for the project) and respect for the
capacity and expertise of the WROs in project ide-
ation, planning, proposal development and bud-
getary development.
‘With this project, one key principle is ‘Noth-
ing for us, without us’ – Nothing for the
WROs without them. We also respect their
agency; another key principle that goes to say
‘they are experts in their own right’ With this,
we respect their expertise and recognise their
capacity in developing the critical goals of the
project. So, during the proposal development
stage, the ideology and the planning, the
Networks were directly involved. They came
out with how the project should be structured,
and how the design of the entire grant should
be structured. This encouraged ownership
from the onset’.
Interview, NNGO, 21-05-2023
Another staff added:
‘Another example is when you leave the high-
est decision-making body, and come down to
the grant-making processes, there is a Panel
that sits, reviews and approves the applica-
tions that we receive as a project. Within this
grant selection and approval panel, the mem-
bership includes the WROs. So, the networks
or the WROs have their representatives in
Shift the power or changing power agenda in the WVL Project
Where do we go from here? 64
there, with other individual experts in the field
with the requisite knowledge when it comes to
operating a gender transformative or a femi-
nist project’.
Interview, NNGO, 21-05-2023
Interviews with project partners revealed that
the relationship between and among the leading
implementing organisation and WRO grantees
is very friendly. There is mutual respect and rec-
ognition of WRO grantees’ expertise, knowledge,
skills and value in decision-making concerning the
WVL project. Partners interviewed confirmed their
engagements and some level of autonomy in deci-
sion-making concerning project proposal develop-
ment, design of project interventions and imple-
mentation. Respondents from one of the partner
organisations interviewed for instance noted:
‘Our relationship is cordial. They are our first
partners. Whenever we call on them, they
respond. Initially, we were thinking they will
behave like superiors so we were reluctant to
communicate with them about certain issues,
but as time went on, we realized that the way
we were thinking of them wasn’t the case, so
on the way we had to start feeling free and
relate with them. We have room to decide
on the kind of project to implement and
they involve us in decision making. Initially,
we weren’t calling them very frequently, but
when we realized that they had opened them-
selves to us, we could then call them very fre-
quently and communicate with them’.
Interview, NNGO, 14-04-2023
We were unable to seek the views of the two net-
work organisations regarding their relationships
and power dynamics in the WVL project. However,
interviews with WRO grantees revealed that they
only came to be involved in the WVL project at the
stage of implementation where there was a call for
proposals to submit an Expression of Interest to
secure funding for the implementation of projects
aimed at enhancing gender equality. Thus, while
there is evidence from the interviews to suggest
that WROs have space to determine the kind of
project or intervention they would want to under-
take under the WVL, it appears that their involve-
ment in the WVL project conception and design is
very limited. Some grantees interviewed reported:
‘We only came to be involved in the WVL
through an Expression of Interest (EOI). We
wrote a proposal and then our proposal was
granted and we were selected to be a partner
of the WVL project’.
Interview, SNGO, 12-05-2023
In line with the above, interviews with the partners
suggest that they recognised Plan International
Ghana both as a donor and partner. This is due
largely to the fact that the funds they received un-
der the WVL were provided by Plan International
but at the same time, they support them to imple-
ment their activities on the ground.
Interviews with project staff and the project
manager of WVL revealed that the relationship
between partners and Plan International Ghana
follows what they described as ‘feminist princi-
ples’ of which a core element is power sharing.
They made it abundantly clear that WVL employs
a participatory and consultative approach to de-
cision-making on project activities (e.g., capacity
building). This approach, according to project
staff interviewed, ensures the demystification and
re-distribution of power to partners on the WVL. A
project staff of WVL noted:
‘We are implementing this WVL Project using
Feminist Principles. One of them focuses on
Power and Power Dynamics. So, on this Proj-
ect, you would realise that it is highly Consul-
tative, ensuring that, Power does not reside
in one arm of the Project, either being on the
Partners’ side or the Project Management’s
side. Therefore, whatever decisions we come
to, regarding what needs to be done on the
project, such as capacity building, or monitor-
ing, we do it in a very participatory manner
ensuring that, all views are brought into ques-
tion before we take any action. That was the
approach we used to ensure that we demystify
Appendix 65
power on our side since we are holding the
money, and for that matter, power would
reside with us, but we tried to use the Femi-
nist Principles to distribute the power evenly
among ourselves and the partners’.
Interview, NNGO, 21-05-2023
Moreover, interviews with the project staff of
WVL revealed that the approach to project de-
cision-making and in all matters relating to the
WVL implementation places beneficiary partners
at the centre. As part of the process of shifting
power, WVL has been intentional in ensuring that
beneficiary partners form part of decision-making
structures at all levels of the project. For example,
a key informant interviewed at Plan International
Ghana noted:
‘The entire Project is being driven on the
wheels of this is not business as usual. So,
we are not doing the same things that every
grant or donor process goes through. When
you look at the WVL Project, at every stage
of the process, the WROs that we work with
have a say when it comes to decision-making
on the type of project they would like to im-
plement. We do not impose project on them.
They have the power, so they have the majori-
ty of the issues that come to be accepted’.
Interview, NNGO, 21-05-2023
Strengthening organisational capacity
Analysis of the interview data revealed that the
WVL adopts a participatory approach to identify
the organisational capacity needs of WROs. This
approach involves careful and sustained interac-
tion and engagement between the WVL project
implementers and WRO members where WRO
members identify and prioritise their organisa-
tional needs in terms of what capacity strength-
ening is needed to enhance their work. Based on
the identified needs by the partners themselves,
a range of capacity-strengthening modules has
been developed throughout the project’s lifetime.
A review of programme documents and interviews
with partners and project staff revealed that six
organisational capacity strengthening modules
including Strategic Planning and Resource Mo-
bilization, Gender Transformative Programming
[GTP], Evidence-Based Advocacy [EBA], Communi-
cations and Media Engagement, Monitoring Eval-
uation and Learning [MEL] have been developed.
For this reason, the WROs have benefited from a
wide range of training programmes. For example,
in 2022, three separate training sessions on MEL
and EBA were organised for the WROs. In all, the
MEL training reached a total of 23 staff (including
13 males, and 11 females) from 23 WRO networks
and grantees. Additionally, during interviews, it
was explained that partners’ capacities have been
built on how to undertake Feminist MEL, ‘to devel-
op MEL frameworks, to acquire the necessary infor-
mation to improve on reporting of results and more’
(Interview, SNGO, 19-04-2023). The EBA training
was also conducted in two sessions, one in the
Northern and Southern zones with a total of 61
participants (46 females, 15 males), with two rep-
resentatives from each GTP and Network partner
(Plan International Canada, 2022: p.6).
Strengthening organisational leadership
and governance structures
Interviews further revealed that WVL has worked
to promote the organisational leadership of the
WROs. What we gathered from the interviews was
that before the WVL project, most of the WROs
were managed and run by individuals, with limit-
ed structures for accountability and transparency.
However, through the support of WVL, many of
the WROs can now boast of functioning gover-
nance structures, that provide space for the voices
of staff to be heard in management processes.
Others have gone beyond setting up governance
structures such as Resource Mobilization Units,
Communication Units and the like, which initially
were not in existence. A project staff of WVL inter-
viewed noted:
‘An aspect of shift the power in WVL can also
be seen in the area of organizational leader-
ship, within the same organization. Now we
see more inclusiveness, diversity, openness,
and transparency. Initially, because these
organizations are owned by just one person,
Where do we go from here? 66
structures for accountability and checks and
balances were absent. Now they can boast of
good governance structures, voices of staff are
heard in the management processes. Others
have established their own Resource Mobiliza-
tion Units and Communication Units’.
Interview, NNGO, 21-05-2023
Provision of flexible funding
Finally, another important aspect of the shift the
power agenda in the WVL project relates to the
provision of flexible grants to WROs at the nation-
al, regional and local levels in Ghana. According
to project staff interviewed the grant is considered
flexible in the sense that implementing partners
take decision on the use of the grant. According
to project staff interviewed, the WVL project pro-
vides flexible multi-year and short-term grants to
partners. While there is also another domain of
funding called ‘Emergency granting’, the repre-
sentatives of Plan International Ghana mentioned
during interviews that they were yet to receive any
request for Emergency Funding. The interviews
further revealed that the partners had room to
decide on the specific intervention they would like
to pursue with the grant they receive under WVL.
According to the WVL project staff interviewed,
the flexible funding received by partners has al-
lowed them to gain a presence at the local level
and also increased their organisational visibility.
This in addition to improvement in governance
structures and organisational capacity has allowed
some WRO partners to secure additional funding
from other donors to support their work.
Implementation challenges for the WVL project
Absence of core funding and high staff
attrition
Interviews with the WVL project staff point to
several implementation issues and difficulties in
relation to WVL’s attempt at shifting the power.
First, it is abundantly clear from the interviews
that organisational sustainability is one main chal-
lenge that WVL face. The project staff interviewed
expressed the view that one core area of WVL is
to strengthen organisational capacity. However,
concerns were raised about the attrition rate for
the staff of the WROs mainly as a result of the
absence of core funding. For this reason, staff
whose capacities have been strengthened may
sometimes choose to leave for relatively bigger in-
ternational organisation, affecting the goal of WVL
in shifting the power. A key informant said:
‘One of the challenges is that when you build
the capacity of staff to a level, where we ex-
pect them to help the organisation improve,
and they leave with the knowledge to join oth-
er organisations. This leads to a huge capacity
gap, and loss of investment in a way, but you
can’t force people to stay because you want
your project to succeed. So, that is one of the
negative outcomes we sometimes get as part
of the project’.
Interview, SNGO, 18-05-2023
Gaps in the implementation of feminist
principles in the WVL project
Another important challenge identified through
the interviews relates to what one WVL project
staff of WVL described as ‘gaps in living the fem-
inist principles in the WVL project’. Interviewees
explained that the application of the feminist
principles in WVL requires patience, time, effort,
and unending consultation with partners before
arriving at a decision or taking a course of action.
There was a consensus from the project staff that
applying feminist principles in relation to com-
pliance and donor requirements is very daunting
and conflicting. The evidence from the interviews
show that some partners may sometimes miscon-
strue the flexibility they have under the guidance
of feminist principles as ‘doing things in their own
way’ as seen in the quote below:
‘The other difficulty relating to the Feminist
Principle is living the principle in relation to
compliance and donor requirements. For in-
Appendix 67
stance, sometimes you would need receipts,
especially if you need to engage a consultant
– as dictated by the procurement procedures.
However, because we are using, flexibility,
transparency and consultation, and all that,
some partners may misconstrue ‘Living the
Principle’ as ‘doing it our own way’ without
recourse to the procurement procedures there-
by failing to comply with such major donor
requirements. It then becomes a problem for
the project team to go and clear their
mess’.
Interview, NNGO, 21-05-2023
Case Study 2: Background of the Giving for Change Project7
The Giving for Change (GfC) project is a five-year
programme (2021-2025) aimed at enhancing
freedom of speech by amplifying the voices of
communities in claiming their rights towards duty
holders through the mobilisation of domestic re-
sources, particularly community philanthropy. It
also aims to promote civic and civil society space,
focusing on amplifying the voices of citizens and
communities to claim their rights. In doing so, the
GfC programme seeks to transform how ‘devel-
opment is done’ by focusing on the recognition of
domestic resource mobilisation in promoting local
ownership, unlocking agency and strengthening
the ability of communities to claim their rights
and entitlements from different stakeholders es-
pecially government officials and international
development actors. The mobilisation of domestic
resources through community philanthropy is re-
garded as a strategy to shift power between local
CSOs and their donors including INGOs.
The GfC project is part of the broader movement
on community philanthropy which emphasis-
es that communities have assets (financial and
non-financial) and when the assets are pooled to-
gether, it helps in building community power and
voice by enabling community members to become
co-investors in their own development. For this
reason, the GfC aims to create an enabling envi-
ronment for community philanthropy through ad-
vocacy to foster the conditions for public participa-
tion, collective action and the expression of rights.
The project is structured around three main do-
mains:
1. To unlock the collective power of local com-
munities represented by civil society actors
to express their opinion through community
philanthropy.
2. To influence in-country national and societal
actors to support community philanthropy
through domestic resource mobilisation or lo-
cal giving.
3. To challenge and change the existing practices
of international development donors.
4. The GfC programme is funded by the Dutch
Ministry of Foreign Affairs under its strength-
ening Civil Society Policy Framework. The pro-
gramme is led by an international alliance or
consortium consisting of the Global Fund for
Community Development, Kenyan Develop-
ment Foundation and Wilde Ganzen. It is being
implemented in eight countries: Brazil, Burkina
Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique,
Palestine and Uganda.
In Ghana, STAR Ghana Foundation is the anchor
institution with the West Africa Civil Society Insti-
tute (WACSI) as a strategic partner. STAR Ghana
Foundation acts as an ‘intermediary organisation’
or a ‘local donor’ and at the same time, an imple-
menting partner of the GfC by working with local
CSOs who are members of the Communities of
Practice (CoP). As part of the GfC, STAR Ghana
Foundation has provided funding to 5 local CSOs
7 This section draws insights from the Giving for Change Multi-Annual Plan 2021-2025 and project documents (e.g. Terms for
Reference for Expression of Interests, GfC 2021 Annual Report, Mid-year report and Annual learning event reports for Ghana).
These documents were supplied by STAR-Ghana Foundation. It also relies on data from interviews with the team at STAR-Gha-
na Foundation and the partners of the GfC programme.
Where do we go from here? 68
to pilot or test innovative ideas on community
philanthropy. For example, as part of the funding,
some local CSOs have established Community
Foundations to mobilise community philanthropy
in promoting local development. STAR Ghana
Foundation also provided funding to 7 local CSOs
to promote local giving infrastructure in Ghana.
Thus, the local CSOs are required to co-finance
their projects. For this reason, the provision of
funding was aimed at testing the extent to which
funding support could serve as an avenue for
developing local philanthropy infrastructure in
Ghana.
Elements of shift the power in the Giving for Change Project
Analysis of the interview data led to the identifica-
tion of the following themes as elements of shifts
of power in the Giving for Change for Change
Project:
1. mobilisation of domestic resources through
community philanthropy;
2. flexibility in accountability requirements; and
3. flexibility in project design and implementa-
tion. These are explained in detail below.
1. Mobilisation of domestic resources
through community philanthropy
Analysis of the interview data suggests that the
GfC contributes significantly towards changing
power dynamics by influencing the funding de-
pendency of local CSOs on external donors. In
doing so, the programme promotes resource
diversification and capacity building or strength-
ening of local CSOs for the mobilisation of do-
mestic resources. Many local CSO representatives
mentioned that the mobilisation of domestic
resources through community philanthropy would
enhance ownership of development interventions
by local communities, promote downward rather
than upward accountability and also ensure the
sustainability of development interventions, espe-
cially in the absence of external donor funding. For
example, one interviewee highlighted the benefits
of community philanthropy through the establish-
ment of community foundations by saying:
‘Through the Giving for Change Project, we
have established a Community Foundation
which is rare in Ghana. It’s something new
in our context where you ask communities
to support their own development… Mo-
bilising community resources through local
philanthropy helps us to hold duty bearers to
account and also makes we [local CSOs] to be
responsive to the needs of the communities’.
Interview, SNGO, 13-06-2023
According to some interviewees, the mobilisation
of community resources creates opportunities for
local CSOs to engage communities to identify and
prioritise their needs. For this reason, ‘the commu-
nity decides on what they want to do and how they
want to achieve it together’ as stated by one inter-
viewee (Interview, SNGO, 13-06- 2023). Another
interviewee also mentioned that:
‘The community foundation is a good con-
cept for mobilising local funds and also teach
communities not to depend on other entities
but look within to develop their resources and
potentials so that if anything happens like
COVID, we will able to contain those shocks’.
Interview, GfC partner, June 2023
A similar view on the importance of community
philanthropy was shared by the representative of
STAR Ghana Foundation who explained that:
‘Some of the partners in the Northern Region
of Ghana especially Sisala District have been
able to use the local resources they mobilised
to build Community Health Planning and
Services (CHPs) Compounds, fixed roads and
built schools. So, organisations are beginning
to see that there are other ways of supporting
community development in addition to re-
ceiving money from external donors [….]. In a
Appendix 69
small way, it is contributing to strengthening
organisational skills in relating better with
constituencies and also getting them to con-
tribute to our work’.
Interview, SNGO- 14-05-2023
Despite the progress made by the GfC in promot-
ing local philanthropy as a way to address the
financial dependency issue which results in power
imbalances, a major concern highlighted was the
inability of local CSOs to mobilise enough local
resources to support their work. For this reason,
some interviewees explained that the level of suc-
cess achieved so far was below their anticipated
outcomes:
‘I think we are aware that it takes so much
more to be able to raise local resources so
in the programme, reducing the level of de-
pendency on external donors would not be
significantly achieved. This is because raising
local resources is not very easy especially when
you’re working in communities that are poor.
So, we have seen some gradual changes, but
it’s not at the pace we have anticipated’.
Interview, SNGO- 14-05-2023
2. Flexibility in accountability
requirements
Analysis of the interview data suggests that the
GfC programme created opportunities for much
flexibility in the accounting requirements. Many
interviewees for instance expressed the view that
the Giving for Change Alliance has been given
much flexibility or freedom by the Dutch Ministry
of Foreign Affairs in terms of accountability and
reporting requirements:
‘Between us [STAR Ghana Foundation] and
the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I think
we have had a lot of room to operate where
we make our choices in terms of where we
wanted the programme to support and even
the location as well as the identification of
issues and partners. In terms of creating ac-
countability for the programme, we have had
room to negotiate with the donor [Dutch Min-
istry of Foreign Affairs] on how we wanted the
reporting to be done and how often. And the
donor [Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs] has
been very accommodating, open and flexible.
We’ve negotiated on reporting timelines and
the donor [Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs]
has also involved us in all kinds of reports’.
Interview, s SNGO, 14-05-2023
The above statement highlights the efforts by
some donors to address long-term or inherent
systematic issues in the international develop-
ment system. It also reflects efforts by some do-
nors to improve their accountability requirements
with southern-based organisations. Thus, the
finding indicates that some donors are creating
opportunities for their partners to co-decide on
the accountability and reporting requirements.
The analysis of the interview data suggests that
flexibility in reporting requirement is also given
to the local CSOs by STAR Ghana Foundation.
Many interviewees mentioned that although STAR
Ghana Foundation has a reporting template, part-
ners are able to make adjustments based on their
contexts. According to a representative of STAR
Ghana Foundation, the flexibility given is based
on feedback received from the partners during the
annual planning events. The respondent further
added that:
‘It has enabled us to be able to respond to the
reporting framework and emerging needs of
partners. If we share our annual plans and if
you compare it to the 5-year plan, you would
see that significantly we have introduced
many new things. We thought that the report-
ing template that we used for the partners was
too demanding because we sometimes ask
for information that we don’t use […] So this
year, we have reviewed the reporting template
to get the necessary information we need’.
Interview, SNGO, 14-05-2023
Similar sentiments were shared by the partners
on the extent of flexibility in reporting provided by
STAR Ghana Foundation.
Where do we go from here? 70
The respondent had this to say:
‘They [STAR Ghana Foundation] are very
flexible and they have done that on numer-
ous occasions. They give you the flexibility to
submit your reports if you’re unable to meet
their timelines [….] The flexibility also includes
involving partners in the design of the pro-
gramme. It’s like a participatory grant-making
where partners are part of the design, imple-
mentation and evaluation of the programme’.
Interview, GfC partner, June 2023
Another respondent explained the level of flexibil-
ity in the programme by indicating that partners
are given the freedom to include items that the
organisations find to be useful in highlighting their
success stories although these are not a reporting
requirement by STAR Ghana Foundation: Thus,
partner organisations go the extra mile to include
items not required by STAR Ghana Foundation in
their reporting template:
‘I think there is a reporting template and you
basically fill the template by putting as much
information as possible. So, for example, we
did a whole documentary which they [STAR
Ghana Foundation] didn’t ask for in our re-
porting. Although they didn’t ask for it, we did
it because we felt it helped us to tell our story
better. So, from that perspective, there’s flexi-
bility and they haven’t told us that next time,
don’t think that. So, I think in that regard,
there is flexibility in the programme’.
Interview, GfC partner, June 2023
3. Flexibility in Project Design and
Implementation
The empirical data from this study also suggests
that much flexibility and autonomy is given to the
local CSOs in choosing their initiatives and the-
matic priorities. Specifically, partners are given the
flexibility to determine their priority areas and the
activities to be undertaken. For instance, a local
CSO representative shared his experience on the
extent of flexibility offered to partners as follows:
‘The GfC project gives us the flexibility to de-
cide on the specific community philanthropy
initiative we want to work with the commu-
nities. So, the flexibility has to do with STAR
Ghana Foundation involving us in the design
of the initiatives. It’s like a participatory grant
making where the local CSOs are part of the
design and implementation of the project’.
Interview, SNGO, 12-06-2023
Interviewees further mentioned that although STAR
Ghana Foundation has a general framework that
guides the design of the initiatives, partners have
the flexibility to change aspects of their projects
in responding to prevailing circumstances on the
ground. The interviewees explained that they were
provided with the flexibility by STAR Ghana Foun-
dation to alter the focus areas of their projects:
‘STAR Ghana Foundation has a policy for the
partners. So, we discuss with them that be-
tween sending concept notes and approval of
the grant, a lot of things change. So, once we
get to the field and realise these changes, you
are able to go back to them, talk to them and
say that, we went to the field and because of
these things, we need to change our approach
and goals’. Interview, SNGO, 12-06-2023
Although interviewees said they had some flexibil-
ity and room for manoeuvre in negotiating report-
ing requirements, the same cannot be said of fund-
ing requirements. Indeed, interviewees explained
that funding decisions are set by STAR Ghana
Foundation once their proposals are approved. For
this reason, they are unable to negotiate the fund-
ing requirements of the programme as described
by an interviewee who argued that:
‘No, we have not seen that [negotiations on
funding requirements] yet. Normally, they will
put out a call and then they set the parameters
on what they are looking for and if you fit the
requirements you go for it. So, we [the part-
ners] do not set those parameters [e.g., grant
amount etc]’.
Interview, SNGO, 13-06- 2023
Appendix 71
Moreover, the analysis of the interview data indi-
cates that for programmatic and funding account-
ability requirements, measures (e.g., using external
auditors, quarterly reporting or updates) are put in
place to ensure value for money. For this reason,
there is an emphasis on ensuring that partners ad-
here strictly to the requirements specified by STAR
Ghana Foundation. During interviews, the repre-
sentatives of STAR Ghana Foundation were asked
about the extent to which partners are able to by-
pass the programmatic and funding accountability
requirements. This is how the staff described it:
‘We expect a certain level of accountability
from our partners and even before grants are
given to our partners, we make sure certain
mechanisms are in place to ensure transpar-
ency. I think there’s no room for partners to
bypass accountability requirements’.
Interview, SNGO, 14-05-2023
In sharing her experience of the financial account-
ability processes, one respondent recounted:
‘When they [STAR Ghana Foundation] sent
the auditor to us, we felt that they had all
our documents, so why are they asking us
everything again from the start even things
that we have submitted? But again, it’s a new
project so I guess, at some point, they have to
change’.
Interview, SNGO, 13-06-2023
The statement suggests that although some level
of flexibility is given to the GfC partners, the need
for efficiency and effectiveness often puts pressure
on the partners to demonstrate transparency and
accountability in the use of donor resources.
Implementation challenges associated with the Giving for
Change Project
Project-based funding arrangements
The study identified some challenges such as
the short-term nature of funding arrangements
and the absence of core funding which affect the
ability of the GfC programme in changing power
relations. According to some interviewees, given
the project-based nature of the GfC programme,
funding was provided for specific initiatives over
a short period of time, hence it was difficult
achieving demonstrable or significant results. For
example, an interviewee explained that his/her or-
ganisation was provided with funds to implement
an initiative over six months. The interviewee went
further to mention that some advocacy interven-
tions or initiatives require long-term funding but
the funding arrangements do not allow for this.
In sharing his/her experience, the interviewee ob-
served:
‘The Giving for Change programme for my
organisation was six months. If you’re actu-
ally going strictly by the terms of references,
it wasn’t even up to six months, so that’s a
learning curve because it was short in itself. It’s
a very short period to achieve any meaningful
impact […] To talk to schools, getting a meet-
ing etc., the whole process takes longer time’.
SNGO, 16-06-2023
Another interviewee added:
‘I think they should give us multi-year funding
like two or three years grants so that it will be
able to sustain the organisation. Because of
the short-term nature of the grant, you’re al-
ways under pressure to deliver’.
Interview, SNGO, 16-06-2023
Aside from the short-term nature of funding, an
interviewee also mentioned the absence of core
funding including overhead costs as a key chal-
lenge. According to the interviewee, the GfC pro-
gramme does not provide core funding which also
Where do we go from here? 72
affects organisational sustainability. The interview-
ee explained that many partners spend a lot of
time on the programme but (...)
‘(...) there are no overheads, even my time on
the project is not catered for. They only cater
for one programme officer and that’s all so it
becomes a challenge for the organisation’.
Interview, SNGO, 14-06-2023
Difficulty changing the mindset of donor
dependency towards domestic resource
mobilisation
Another challenge faced by the GfC relates to the
willingness of the local CSOs organisations to
change their mindset from donor dependency to
domestic resource mobilisation or local philan-
thropy. Although the GfC programme seeks to
promote local philanthropy, the concern among
the staff of STAR Ghana Foundation was that
many local CSOs in Ghana perceive domestic
resource mobilisation as a difficult endeavour
compared to writing proposals to external donor
agencies. For this reason, the mindset of depen-
dency on external donor funding served as a key
hindrance towards efforts aimed at shifting power.
According to the representatives of STAR Ghana
Foundation, they had to drop some partners of
the GfC programme because they had become
so reliant on external donor funding and were not
willing to seek alternative domestic resources:
‘We also realise that there’s still that percep-
tion that people are refusing to move away
from looking out for grants [external donor
funding]. We dropped three of our partners be-
cause they were only interested in the grants
[…]. In addressing the mindset challenge,
we’ve had to have very difficult conversations
with some of our partners. We also had to
reengage the members of the Communities of
Practice for instance, to know if they were still
interested in the GfC programme knowing
there will be no financial incentives’.
Interview, SNGO, 21-05-2023
It was further explained that the mindset of do-
nor dependency was not limited to local CSOs
but also communities who are used to receiving
support from external donor agencies and NGOs.
For this reason, mobilising communities to use
their own resources for development through
community philanthropy was a challenge ‘because
some communities are always waiting for donors,
governments and NGOs for help’ as observed by
an interviewee (Interview, SNGO, 16-05-2023).
In addressing this challenge, the partners of the
GfC programme focus on learning new skills and
building the capacity of communities to take the
lead in promoting their own development.
Conclusion
The GfC project is an innovative initiative aimed
at changing power dynamics in the international
development system through the mobilisation of
domestic resources (i.e., community philanthro-
py) by local CSOs and communities. On the other
hand, the WVL seeks to contribute to shift the
power by promoting and strengthening the organ-
isational capacity of WROs in terms of their gov-
ernance and leadership structures as well as the
provision of flexible funding to support the work
of WROs to promote gender equality. The findings
from both case studies indicate some level of flex-
ibility in the project design and implementation
and reporting requirements. However, the study
found that despite the flexibility in reporting re-
quirements, funding decisions were unilaterally
set by the intermediary organisations (i.e., STAR
Ghana Foundation and Plan International Ghana)
with little involvement of the partners. Moreover,
what is common across the two cases is that the
project-based nature of funding characterised by
the absence of core funding and short-term fund-
ing arrangement serves as a barrier or hinderance
to efforts aimed at promoting shift the power.
Appendix 73
Introduction
Globally, there is increased demand for a more
equitable relationship between actors in the
non-governmental organisation (NGO) sector.
Until recently, humanitarian responses were
significantly dominated by Northern NGOs (NN-
GOs) possibly due to the financial resources that
they possess. However, many questions arise over
their monopolisation of this space: are they as ef-
fective as they claim to be; could the involvement
of organisation already on ground, known as local
and national humanitarian actors (LNHAs) im-
prove the timeliness and quality of the response?
What encumbrances do the LNHAs face in these
humanitarian efforts? Such questions bring to
the fore the need to address the inequalities be-
tween NNGOs and the local actors, and this is
at the core of the shifting the power movement.
The Empowering Local and National Humanitar-
ian Actors (ELNHA) project that is the focus of
this study illustrates an attempt spearheaded by
Oxfam, a NNGO, to augment the capacities of
Ugandan CSOs to play more leading roles in the
humanitarian response.
Background
This case study is part of a larger study on trans-
forming power inequalities between development
NGOs in the north and those in the global south.
To collect the evidence in a systematic way, the
study started off by mapping existing initiatives
through a global online survey; this was followed
with in-depth interviews with selected civil soci-
ety organisations both in the Global North and
South. Through the interviews initiatives aimed at
shifting power relations in the global South were
identified. Within the Global South our focus was
on two countries – Ghana and Uganda.
When juxtaposed with the findings from the
online survey, this case study is aligned to the
category localisation as one of the terminologies
respondents were more familiar with. It falls un-
der the humanitarian sector, the second biggest
categorisation of the organisations from which
the survey respondents were drawn. It comprises
of capacity strengthening, the most commonly
mentioned category as an avenue to reduce power
inequalities.
This report documents the views of some of the
participating partners of the Empowerment of
Local and National Humanitarian Actors(ELNHA)
project. It focuses on the way the project was
organised, the relationships between partners
in Uganda’s humanitarian space. The data was
collected through eight in-depth key informant
interviews (3 Oxfam Uganda staff; 5 local project
partners). We complemented the interviews with
a review of secondary evidence including project
documents.
APPENDIX 4
Uganda case study
The ELNHA project
Empowering Local and National Humanitarian
Actors (ELNHA) sought to challenge and reverse
the tendency where global actors including do-
nors, UN agencies and NNGOs dominated the
humanitarian space in developing countries. This
was part of the Charter for Change (C4C) com-
mitments made at the 2016 World Humanitarian
Summit (WHS) to reduce barriers that prevent
organisations and donors from partnering with
local and national responders. Thus, ELNHA
was piloted in Uganda and Bangladesh by Oxfam
between 2016 and 2021 to promote more equal
sharing of power and resources between exter-
nal humanitarian actors and local and national
Where do we go from here? 74
ones in the two countries. It exemplifies efforts by
Oxfam, an NNGO, to empower as well as create
space for local organisations to take leading roles
in humanitarian preparedness and response with-
in their countries.
In Uganda, ELNHA focused on strengthening
the capacities of about 60 LNHAs to be able to
actively participate in managing the huge refugee
influxes in northern and north-eastern part of the
country. The specific approaches for strengthening
local partners employed in the ELNHA project can
usefully be categorised into three complementary
strategies, namely:
1. Technical capacity strengthening (capacity)
2. Creation of new structures and platforms to
influence the humanitarian agenda in Uganda
(voice), and
3. Convincing large international donors and NN-
GOs to tailor their policies in support of local
humanitarian actors’ leadership (space).
One of the major justifications for ELNHA related
to the funding. The project attempted to eliminate
the middleman (NNGOs) to give the local actors
the capacity and opportunity to engage directly
with the donors. Unlike the conventional approach
to development interventions where the local ac-
tors are sub-grantees, the ELNHA actors worked
in a partnership model that had a learning compo-
nent, empowering the partners to enable them to
feel respected and play a leading role in all aspects
in terms of decision-making.
Some of the project implementation was also
done in consortia in contrast to partners having
the monopoly of certain donors, this was helpful
in breaking such barriers was a helpful in reduc-
ing power inequality. Working in consortia, gave
members the opportunity to share and learn from
each other. However, given that all this happened
in the context of the shrinking funding in the hu-
manitarian sector suggests other intentions such
as the need to maximise efficiency that is part
of the neoliberal agenda. Working through local
organisations was deemed less costly especially
through reducing reliance on international experts.
The local actors are deemed more knowledgeable
and faster in the humanitarian context. Below we
examine each of the project components in detail.
Strengthening the capacity of the local
and national organisations
This component arose from the recognition that
it was neither possible nor desirable for NNGOs
such as Oxfam to respond to all disasters as
they occurred across the globe. For effectiveness,
Oxfam thought working through local agencies
would be the best approach to responding to
disasters in real time. The 2017 refugee influx in
northern Uganda served to support this thinking.
Oxfam felt that the response would have been
quicker, more efficient and sustainable had local
partners been at the frontline. However, Oxfam
and gatekeeping agencies that determine who is
admitted to work in the sector, perceived of local
organisations as having limited capacities in all
organisational aspects including governance and
management structures, organisational policies,
strategic plans, financial controls and orientation
in the core humanitarian standards. Building the
institutional structures of local and national part-
ners to be able to ‘take a leading role in the design
and implementation of humanitarian responses’
(Interview ELNHA partner 2, 28-03-2023) therefore
constituted ELNHA’s first pillar.
Local and national organisations were subjected
to the Humanitarian Country Capacity Assessment
which identified their individual capacity needs/
gaps that needed to be plugged to transform them
into LNHAs. The response was holistic, whereby
partners were trained in different aspects ranging
from governance and management to resource
mobilisation, book keeping, and improving ac-
counting systems to be more accountable. The
project included training of the board members of
the LNHAs to appreciate their roles.
Consultants and/or experienced organisations
like Development Research and Training (DRT)
and Uganda Red Cross were identified to provide
technical support to each organisation depending
Appendix 75
on their unique needs. These aspects were crit-
ical in allaying the fears of NNGOs and funders
concerning providing direct funding to southern
NGOs due to weak governance and accountability
systems.
According to ELNHA partners ‘Oxfam wanted us
to own up and do better in their absence(...). It built
our capacities and afterwards put us, the local actors,
in charge of the whole intervention. That was tre-
mendous for me!’ (ELNHA partner 4, 28-03-2023).
Another one opined,
‘It would have been impossible for Oxfam to
work with us and have the intended results
without first strengthening sectors like finance,
procurement and logistics. Oxfam had to
bring two of their staff to sit at ELNHA part-
ner 1 for like two years as a way of mentoring
to make sure we implement the project the
way Oxfam was doing’.
Interview ELNHA partner 1, 03-04-2023
Oxfam set aside a Humanitarian Capacity Devel-
opment Fund (HCDF), to ensure that the gaps
identified by local actors are addressed. Regional
support partners were identified to help coordi-
nate the capacity strengthening initiatives.
Through organisational and institutional develop-
ment and by building quality assurance mecha-
nisms ELNHA partners could get certified by the
office of the Prime minister(OPM), the line minis-
try in charge of humanitarian response.
The capacity strengthening was twinned with an
aspect of co-creation where some proposals seek-
ing funding were written by Oxfam together with
some partners, giving them an opportunity to give
their ideas. Also, partners were invited on an an-
nual basis, invited for joint reviews of some of the
smaller projects implemented.
According to one of the partners, ELNHA enabled
them to have practical direct coaching and men-
torship on humanitarian response by Oxfam staff.
This interaction helped them to learn; for exam-
ple, two engineers from Oxfam were seconded to
CEFORD for two years, strengthening CEFORD’s
capacity in WASH related engineering.
Other project partners also reported being al-
lowed identify project interventions and take de-
cisions since they were on the ground. A respon-
dent observed:
‘There was respect of organisational manage-
ment and systems, recognising that ELNHA
partner 4 also has its own governance system
that also is a plus, because we were never
pushed to say do it this way unless when it
was an area of strategic planning. We devel-
oped emergency plans, they said do it in your
capacity so that you develop. For me that was
a better way of supporting local organisations
to take decisions’.
Interview ELNHA partner 4, 14-04-2023
It should be remembered that strengthening the
capacity of local organisations was mentioned by
a significant proportion of the survey participants
from the SNGOs. Their responses focused more
on the capacity for raising funds for their organi-
sations. The evidence from ELNHA indicates that
some of the actors had been able to obtain funds
to implement interventions.
Giving LNHAs a voice
Giving partners a voice was intentioned to help
local partners gain entry and recognition at the
decision-making table of the humanitarian ecosys-
tem. Oxfam spearheaded a campaign for opening
the decision-making spaces both locally and inter-
nationally. ELNHA made efforts to enable ‘local
actors to be able to participate in meetings and
speak for themselves in both national and interna-
tional fora’. According to key informants ELNHA
partners ‘started attending coordination meetings
at settlement level, and inter-agency meetings
where they had never imagined to be part of’ (In-
terview ELNHA partner 1, 03-04-2023).
Where do we go from here? 76
ELNHA facilitated the creation of four regional civ-
il society platforms namely, the West Nile, Acholi,
Karamoja and later Western Uganda humanitarian
platforms, to aid the coordination of all partners
from those regions (including local governments,
media and academia), encourage sharing of ex-
periences, strengthening of capacities, and to ‘ad-
vocate collectively so that we have strength in the
numbers in whatever we do’ (Interview ELNHA
partner 2, 28-03-2023). A national-level steering
committee (the national platform) was also set up
comprising of representatives from the regional
platforms. Through these platforms joint action
plans and advocacy plans were developed. The
platforms acted as spaces for humanitarian infor-
mation sharing and dialogue. They were used to
engage government agencies, donors, NNGOs in
support of localisation of humanitarian aid:
‘In these fora we continuously advocated for
the things that we believe in, that is to say,
the issue of power imbalance, making sure
that the relationships are very meaningful for
us to work well as the local actors because we
are the first responders and understand the
context better’.
Interview ELNHA partner 2, 28-03-2023
The experience from the regional and national
platforms helped LNHAs to participate in other
international and global spaces where the debate
on localisation takes place. Respondents men-
tioned the Grand Bargain and the Inter-Agency
Steering Committee (IASC) as some of the inter-
national initiatives supporting locally led respons-
es where they have effectively participated with a
united Ugandan voice.
Through these platforms, the idea of LNHAs
working through consortia was hatched and pilot-
ed. Beyond access to funding opportunities, these
humanitarian platforms and networks enabled the
sharing of humanitarian information across the
membership and strengthened coordination and
collaboration among LNHAs.
These platforms put emphasis on strengthening
coordination among LNHAs and to promote
partnerships among and beyond the traditional
humanitarian actors. It provided for collaboration
and building synergies with local governments to
improve coordination in the humanitarian setting.
As one respondent noted:
‘Before ELNHA, the relationship between the
civil society and the district local governments
was about blame; us in civil society thought
we are doing the best thing and the district
were not doing anything right. There was
always something the district didn’t do well.
When we started having such kind of interac-
tions in ELNHA, we were in the same space
together, we stopped fearing the district, they
were part of us, I could go to the CAO’s office
and tell him I have this activity going on, I
need you to come and take part’
Interview ELNHA partner 1, 03-04-2023
In the same vein, ELNHA partnered with academ-
ic institutions like Gulu university to undertake
research that would produce evidence-based ad-
vocacy. The project also partnered with the media
to aid the dissemination of information.
Space to act
The project purposed to create spaces or oppor-
tunities where local actors would be able to show-
case their abilities, including abilities for planning,
coordination, and implementation of humanitar-
ian projects, this was intended to change the im-
pression that local actors do not have the capacity
to respond to humanitarian situation.
To achieve this goal the project implemented
three sets of activities:
1. Convincing donors, government, and NNGOs
to demonstrate accountable partnership with
LNHAs.
2. Convincing donors, NNGOs and government
to allocate resources to support LNHA initia-
tives.
3. Convince NNGOs to use their influence in sup-
Appendix 77
port of strengthening the role and leadership
of LNHA.
To demonstrate accountable partnership with
LNHAs, Oxfam led by example. It re-oriented its
financing and partnership policies, systems, and
practices to actualise the call for localisation when
it introduced funding streams to provide LNHAs
with start-up resources for showcasing their ca-
pacities: the humanitarian action fund (HAF) and
the humanitarian response grant facility (HRGF).
Between April 2019 and Dec 2020, four rounds of
HRGF were conducted and supported 17 locally
led humanitarian responses including 11 that
were implemented through consortia. ELNHA
provided grants to local actors up to $500,000 and
through other co-created projects, LNHAs have
obtained over $1,600,000 million from various do-
nors and international agencies. The HRGF fund-
ing was accessed through a competitive process,
partly to determine the partners’ ability to write
proposals that could be funded by donors:
‘We wanted to see if organisations could come
up with fundable proposals that any other
donor could also appreciate to provide them
with money’
Interview Oxfam, 12-04-2023
The other aspect of competition was to encourage
cooperation among local humanitarian organisa-
tions:
‘We advised that to win these grants, organ-
isations needed to form consortia to bring
different skills and ideas together to be able to
shoot with one strong proposal that brings out
complementarity among them’.
Interview Oxfam, 12-04-2023
According to Oxfam, efforts to reduce the pow-
er inequalities necessitated having local actors
interface with donors and other powerful actors
in spaces where they influence the humanitarian
agenda. Respondents explained that prior to the
ELNHA project local partners felt unwelcome in
the humanitarian response meetings convened
by UNHCR. Meetings involving NNGOs and local
organisations would only happen through the lo-
cal government as an intermediary. With ELNHA,
they began attending without going through the
local government. According to the local actors,
the project helped to change the way they were
viewed by NNGOs. At the national level, there
were conversations on shaping refugee responses
in Uganda happens at the Comprehensive Refu-
gee Response Framework (CRRF) steering com-
mittee – a multi-stakeholder group hosted in the
Office of the Prime Minister. Through the ELNHA
advocacy, the membership of the CRRF was ex-
panded to include the chairperson of the national
humanitarian platform. This enabled LNHAs to be
part and parcel of those who steer Uganda’s hu-
manitarian agenda.
Besides providing direct funding, Oxfam worked
with the CRRF Secretariat to conduct studies into
tracking the funding flows in Uganda to local
humanitarian actors. The resultant money talks
reports helped to establish a baseline from which
international actors could measure progress on
achieving the C4C commitment for NNGOs to
channel at least 25% of their funding to LNHAs.
With better coordination and collaboration among
LNHAs, other organisations slowly started trust-
ing them by funding them directly. ELNHA project
document lists over 12 local organisations that
obtained funding from donor agencies includ-
ing USAID, European Union, DGF, UNDP, GIZ
among others. Interestingly some of the funding
came in form of long-term programmes (Oxfam,
2021). For example, in 2020, one of the LNHAs
called Vision for Humanity (ViFoH) secured a
multi-year project from the European Union to
respond to the increased environmental degra-
dation and to promote alternative energy sources
in refugee hosting districts in West Nile, Uganda.
This grant was the first of its kind as ViFoH had
previously depended on activity-based and short-
term grants.
Where do we go from here? 78
Convincing donors to allocate resources to
support LNHA activities was achieved via the
enhanced visibility that local actors obtained
through working in consortia, being better coor-
dinated in the humanitarian platforms and being
represented at the CRRF. With this, donors like
USAID, EU, UNASO, UNDP, TROCAIRE, DGF,
Oxfam, GIZ and Share Trust allocated about USD
2million (USD) to LNHAs in direct funding (Ox-
fam, 2021). In October 2020, the World Bank in-
vited two ELNHA members – Care and Assistance
for Forced Migrants (CAFOMI) and Transcultural
Psychosocial Organisation (TPO) – to apply for a
grant to enhance district capacity to prevent and
respond to Gender Based Violence and Violence
Against Children. This was a clear example of
increased visibility and appreciation of the contri-
bution of LNHAs from an agency whose funding
is often reserved for governments and/or big de-
velopment agencies.
With regards to convincing donors and NNGOs
to support LNHAs to take lead in the humanitar-
ian sector Oxfam through ELNHA initiated dia-
logues between Local and National Humanitarian
actors, and like-minded NNGOs in 2019. These
dialogues culminated into the Charter for Change
(C4C) Working Group in Uganda. The African
Women and Youth Action for Development (AWY-
AD) and Community Empowerment for Rural
Development (CEFORD) both partners in the EL-
NHA project were nominated to respectively chair
and co-chair this working group. The C4C network
in Uganda has been able to obtain endorsements
of over 50 local and national agencies as well as
international agencies to the Charter for Change
movement in support of localisation of humani-
tarian aid.
Some of the actors also acknowledged that there
was more working together between organisa-
tions, there was more exposure even beyond
Uganda. There is a change in their advocacy
strategies, relating with different stakeholders
and the interaction has become less confronta-
tional. One of the achievements, as perceived by
a respondent, is that there was a better approach
to humanitarian response because of the capac-
ity strengthening by project. According to this
respondent, the organisations have, apparently
adjusted their policies to suit humanitarian re-
sponse; there was also a creation of a relationship
between organisations. A project partner observed
that they engaged in useful conversations with
Oxfam about what works and what does not
work. This according to them was an indication
of commitment to give local organisations the
confidence to engage with other NNGOs. The
platforms created by the project made the actors
know that they could talk or disagree with inter-
national partners/donors about what can or not
work.
Outcomes of ELNHA
Faster and more context appropriate
response to disasters
The project envisaged that placing local actors
into leading roles would make emergency re-
sponse faster and more context appropriate. In
some ways this was realised. For example, when
conflict broke out between refugees and the host
communities, LNHAs played crucial mediation
roles – engaging the host communities to harmo-
niously live with refugees in ways that would be
difficult for INGOs devoid of the local knowledge
(Tonning et al., 2021). It was also observed that
when Covid-19 broke out LNHAs were readily
available to send staff at the frontline in refugee
settlements as most NNGOs staff movements
were constrained by the national lockdowns. For-
tunately, LNHAs were located close to refugee
settlements in the West Nile and ready to respond
thanks to the earlier capacity strengthening activi-
ties of the project. According to Oxfam (2021)
LNHAs were supported to take up new roles,
such as supporting food distributions and or-
ganising radio talks shows as learning platforms
Appendix 79
for disseminating Covid-19 Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs). With support from ELNHA,
refugee-led organisations were able to translate
Covid-19 standard operating procedures into
languages spoken by the refugees, and also dis-
tributed soap and masks to the most vulnerable
refugee populations.
However, some LNHAs complained that their
role was seen as temporary, only recognised as
first responders soon after a disaster happens.
In this case they would be required to hando-
ver areas of operation when the well-resourced
INGOs arrive. During the 2017 refugee influx
in Palabek refugee settlement, local agencies
claim that they were pushed out when the big
and well-resourced international organisations
arrived. This is problematic because NNGO
interventions tend to be short-term, and they
usually exit before communities fully gain
capacity to stand on their feet. As noted by a
key informant: ‘Many of these organisations
leave, many left since 2017, but we are still
here’.
Interview ELNHA partner 4, 14-04-2023
Moreover, criticisms have been voiced in the
literature regarding downloading the burden of
responding to disasters to local organisations.
Critics note that fronting local organisations at the
forefront of humanitarian activities is part of the
wider neoliberal humanitarianism of pursuing effi-
ciency amidst global reduction in funding for hu-
manitarian responses (Roepstorff, 2020). Hence
attention turns to working through the cheaper
local partners. Oxfam’s own staff confirmed this:
‘It was realised that working with the local
organisations is cheaper than when you jet in
the experts from the global teams. [NNGOs]
come and respond and when the response is
done, they leave for another response in an-
other country’.
Interview Oxfam, 12-04-2023
Improved confidence of local partners
Local organisations appreciated Oxfam’s willing-
ness to take a chance and trust them with large
amounts of money while the other NNGOs were
shunning them. Respondents argued that no
other NNGO was willing take the risk- entrusting
money with a local organisation without being
sure of their capacity to properly use the money.
According to one respondent, at the time when
ELNHA started, there was no local actor involved
in the standardised humanitarian response. With
ELNHA, CEFORD became the first local actor to
work in a refugee settlement in West Nile. Where-
as Oxfam had been working with CEFORD prior
to the ELNHA, it was a sub granting arrangement.
With the ELNHA project, there was a deliberate
effort to strengthen the organisation in terms of
accountability. They started transferring money
directly to CEFORD.
‘Oxfam came to us for humanitarian response
when no donor was willing to take the risk of
working with local organisations’.
Interview ELNHA partner 1, 03-04-2023
This helped build confidence among local organi-
sations; a respondent from YSAT the local to local
partnership formed through the project were of
added value since actors continued to work to-
gether beyond the project supported by Oxfam.
These actors combined their strengths to apply
for funding from other international and global
donors. YSAT was nominated for the UNHCR
NGO implementation award and came second in
the east African region because of their COVID 19
response.
‘Oxfam really wanted us to have this con-
versation that local people had to lead the
humanitarian response and the rest of the
organisations needed to follow. It achieved
this by first making local organisations gain
confidence that they can discuss such issues
with other NNGOs’.
Interview ELNHA partner 2, 28-03-2023
Where do we go from here? 80
The ELNHA initiated dialogues resulted in the C4C
working group in Uganda. Two of the ELHNA ac-
tors AWYAD and CEFORD were nominated to chair
and co-chair respectively for the working group.
Another of the project partners, Community Em-
powerment for Creative Innovation(CECI) in 2020
secured membership to the global movement of
civil society organisations, becoming the first refu-
gee led organisation from Uganda to be nominated
to the network for empowered aid response’s advo-
cacy working group, it was subsequently added to
the membership. It also became the first RLO from
Uganda to be admitted to this global humanitarian
space. This allowed the organisation to add a voice
and strength in shaping the humanitarian agenda.
There was initial hesitation in clearing local CSOs
for humanitarian response by UNHCR. However,
overtime, trust has been built and organisations
like Rural Imitative for Community Empowerment
(RICE) West Nile, CARITAS Arua, CEFORD among
others started receiving funding. According to a
project document-Localisation Through the Lens of
Elnha Model, the active participation in the West-
ern Nile humanitarian platform raised the profiles
of the LNHA’s profile among NNGOs and UN
agencies. The international actors participated in
this platform, and this accordingly, instilled a sense
of mutual trust. This resulted in partnerships and
collaborations between LNHAs and INGOs.
According to respondents, participating organisa-
tions learnt to negotiate, engage or disagree with
the international partners (donors) about what
can work for them and what could not work. That
courage was picked from the way Oxfam interacted
with them. The ability of some of the local actors to
begin obtaining funding directly from the donors
bypassing the intermediary role of the NNGOs was
attributed to the ability that some of the project
actors gained to speak at humanitarian actor’s
meetings, and getting recognised for the work they
had done. By passing the intermediary resonates
with some of the evidence from the SNGO respon-
dents, that these intermediaries gain the status of
donors, creating additional conditionalities for the
actors in the global south. A respondent, talking
about the ELNHA project observed as follows:
‘…I think a lot of capacity strengthening was
done for local actors so that they can engage
with the international actors and other hu-
manitarian agencies. The other one was to
make sure that people advocate for the issues
of funding but also the grievances in the re-
lationship between international NGOs and
local NGOs. That comes with also identifying
space where we can sit and discuss about is-
sues, the round table’.
Interview ELNHA partner 2, 28-03-2023
Oxfam made sure that its slot in some of the inter-
national spaces were utilised by local actors:
‘There are other spaces where Oxfam as an
international organisation can access but the
local actors have no knowledge of them. Ox-
fam has been holding hands of our representa-
tives to advocate in such spaces’.
Interview ELNHA partner 2, 28-03-2023
As a consequence of the project, there was gradual
attitudinal change of the NNGOs in the humani-
tarian response to the abilities of the local actors.
The respondents observed that much of the work
that was supported by the project around space
and voice resulted in some mindset change of their
donors. In addition, there is evidence that some of
the project partners are obtaining direct funding
without having to go through middlemen. Talking
about the outcomes of the project a respondent
observed:
‘One of the outcomes is some change in atti-
tudes of the NNGOs, UN and others towards
local actors much as we have not completely
reached the level we want. We have largely
moved away from the fear that the local actors
are risky, they have gradually increased their
ability for us to support them. Currently, the
donors are now asking for proposals to see how
they are going to work with local actors; it is
now a requirement’.
Interview Oxfam, 24-05-2023
Appendix 81
There was an increase in the coordination and
collaboration of the local partners, reducing the
individualistic approach to intervention. Some of
the actors in the project are actively participating
or engaged with the Charter for Change (C4C)
discussions. At the time of conducting this case
study, a local actor was hosting the global forum
for C4C.
The project also increased the visibility of some
of the participating organisations. Some of them
showcased their work during the Uganda National
Refugee Summit in 2017. Working closely with
Oxfam gave them mileage and some of these
actors have subsequently been recognised as UN
implementing partners.
According to one respondent that participated in
the project implementation, some of the actors
improved their skills for resource mobilisation
through the project’s competitive process for the
seed fund through proposal writing. There was
also an increase in the partners’ knowledge of the
of the humanitarian response standards. They
gained the capacity to initiate their own interven-
tions, this was attributed to the holistic capacity
strengthening in human resource management,
improvement of the governance systems. Docu-
mentary evidence indicates that the HRGF helped
the actors to demonstrate capacity to design and
manage response programmes. This aimed at in-
creasing direct access to other sources of funding
for future response.
Organisational growth
Through the project, some of the actors got to
appreciate the need for structures in place; gov-
ernance structures and the segregation of duties.
They also appreciated the training on developing
organisational policies. By the end of the project,
many of the actors had improved their ability to
operate in humanitarian situations. A case in
point is the Youth Social Advocacy Team, (YSAT)
which began as a refugee led initiative in 2017,
then it was registered as a community based or-
ganisation in Rhino Camp Refugee settlement.
By 2023, the organisation had attained the status
of a regional NGO in Uganda, focusing on the
challenges that face young people, and that they
can do something constructive instead of causing
violence when given an opportunity.
Recognition
Some of the study respondents said that taking
part in the ELNHA project increased their recog-
nition by donors/NNGOs and government. This
was evident from some of them getting funding
directly from the funders. Prior to the ELNHA,
UNHCR worked through intermediaries like Ox-
fam, but post the project, they began giving the
funds directly to the local actors. This, according
to some of the study participants, reduced the
cost of the intervention. Through the Office of the
Prime Minister a number of ELNHA partners were
registered as humanitarian responders. Even the
language of reference began to change from local
actors to implementing partners, some of them
being taken as leading agencies for some sectors.
Organisations like AWYDA started playing the
leading role in the sector of protection.
Being part of the project gave the partners the
opportunity to showcase their capacity to the
effect that a local partner is the one hosting the
global platform for C4C in Uganda. There was a
reduction in the gap between NNGOs and the
local organisations; there is minimal difference
between the staff while in the field. The following
is illustrative:
‘The other one was it reduced the gap be-
tween the NNGOs and local organisation
now when you are in the field and you are a
staff of a local organisation, and you meet a
staff of NNGO, there is no difference, right
now when you go, you are all responding, you
are all humanitarian workers but before the
gap was very big, the other one is a staff of
an NNGO and for you, you are a community
volunteer’.
Interview ELNHA partner 5, 07-04-2023
Recognition of the local humanitarian players was
not limited to NNGOs. It included the private
Where do we go from here? 82
sector, government structures like for instance
the district disaster management committees
(DDMCs,) the refugee led organisations and the
women rights organisations, and the faith-based
organisations. Community Empowerment for Ru-
ral Transformation (CEFORD), one of the local hu-
manitarian actors on the refugee crisis in the west
Nile region was approached by the government of
Uganda through the OPM to facilitate stakeholder
engagements to calm growing tensions between
refugees and the host communities.
Local NGOs were admitted to decision-making
spaces that they never dreamt of entering:
‘At national level, certain meetings, local ac-
tors would not appear within the humanitari-
an settings but this has changed’.
Interview ELNHA partner 4, 14-04-2023
Some the respondents observed that coordina-
tion mechanism in the humanitarian sector had
changed, when making up clusters, they ensure
that local organisations are part of the structure.
This was attributed to the ELHNA project that
began the conversation about letting the local
actors do humanitarian response work and being
recognised.
ELNHA project challenges
The project had a number of challenges that com-
promised the achievement of all its goals.
Limited geographical scope
As an initiative to address the inequalities among
humanitarian actors, the implementers felt that
restricting it to the northern region of the country
was constraining since there are other regions
that also had humanitarian interventions. Many
more local actors need the capacity strengthening
to improve their response and to also demon-
strate that they can play the role of international
actors.
Organisational inertia
The ELNHA MEAL coordinator observed that
some of the project partners were not as respon-
sive as had been anticipated especially regarding
adjusting the governance systems. The respon-
dent attributed this to the founders’ syndrome,
that resulted in some inertia. Some the founders
viewed system changes as intended to keep them
out of the strategic control of the organisation.
Organisations that are formed with the main
purpose of assisting the communities are more
responsive. Organisations with the founders’ syn-
drome are said to be slow at developing financial
and governance systems making it difficult for
other partners to work with them. Talking about
the founder’s syndrome, an informant observed:
‘Some still have those risks and they need to
be supported but also the support sometimes
was not effective where their founders were
not willing to change, there were such cases
where the local partner’s environment was a
bit risky for the other partners to work with.
There are those who needed more support
than the others and it affected implementa-
tion; we had those few cases’.
Interview Oxfam, 24-05-2023
Sustainability
Some of the interventions, especially the plat-
forms that brought partners together, the spaces
that were created did not remain as active after
the closure of the project, they remained in name
but with minimal activity although they continued
providing actors of different organisation with
vital connections.
Whereas the project received some support from
government structures especially at the local level,
some of the respondents said that the political
environment at the national level was not very
supportive to complement the ELNHA efforts.
The second phase of the project was affected by
the closure of the accounts of the NGO forum,
a CSO umbrella organisation for a period of six
months. This constrained the activities project
activities since some of the local implementers
Appendix 83
accessed intervention funds through the umbrella
organisation.
Resistance of the international agencies
Initially, there was some resistance to the idea of
allowing local actors to be the frontline respond-
ers to humanitarian crises from the international
actors including UNHCR that hitherto dominated
this space. When Oxfam Uganda engaged the
local actors to respond in its position the oth-
er Northern responders argued that the local
partners did not have capacity and letting them
respond would put the lives of the refugees at
risk. Also, the attitude of international actors was
negative when local partners invited them to the
regional platforms:
‘Local governments had to write to them to
come and attend our meetings but later they
started attending the meetings voluntarily
which means there was a change in mind’.
Interview ELNHA partner 2, 28-03-2023
Finally, the HRGF as one of the funding element
of ELHNA faced delays due to the resistance from
the OPM and UNHCR, actors that are responsible
for clearing humanitarian responders.
Half-hearted acceptance of sharing power
There is evidence that some of projects partici-
pants doubted the NNGOs full commitment to
work with the local actors. When the conditionali-
ty for funding becomes the basis of a partnership,
it does not result in genuine power sharing. This
is partly attributed to the reality that those with
financial resources or direct link with the funders
still have an upper hand in any partnership. This
can also be the case where a grant is jointly writ-
ten, the partners that takes the lead will have
more power. A respondent observed: ‘Northern
NGOs are working with the local partners, they are
partnering but some of them are doing it just be-
cause it is a condition for them to get the grant’ (In-
terview ELNHA partner 2, 28-03-2023).
Respondents explained that power imbalances
have persisted both in development and even
in humanitarian response. There are also within
country imbalances, there is a perception that the
organisations that are spatially at the core will
hold more power than those at the periphery. The
following quote is illustrative:
‘Organisations like ours that have headquar-
ters in Arua, when we are in Kampala, we are
called sub-national organisations and those
ones in Kampala call themselves national
organisations … [with such a language] they
are sending a message to you that you are
not as they are… it is a kind of psychological
warfare’.
Interview ELNHA partner 2, 28-03-2023
Moreover, some of the respondents mentioned
that not all the Oxfam staff were converted and
committed to the project aim of genuinely em-
powering the local actors. There was some evi-
dence of bad staff attitude towards the local part-
ners, being looked at as competitors that could
take their jobs. Such staff wanted to impose them-
selves on the leadership of the project partners.
The high staff turnover on the side of Oxfam also
negatively affected project implementation. Some
respondents mentioned that changes in the sup-
porting staff that they worked with was problemat-
ic since some of the new recruits took a long time
to adjust to their role and seemingly learning on
the job. Some of them, sent to support the part-
ners were not able to give the requisite support.
The local actors in some instances had to support
themselves yet the technical support from Oxfam
was crucial.
Inadequate funding
The capacity was given but some of the actors
felt that it should have been accompanied with
more financial resources than were availed. Or-
ganisations should have been structurally more
organised, better facilitated. There was also a high
staff turnover. After gaining the capacity/skills,
employees would leave for better remunerating
employers.
Where do we go from here? 84
Consortia were a form of forced marriage
Respondents observed that the consortium el-
ement of the project did not grow organically, it
was rushed and therefore not sustainable. When
it commenced in the second phase of the proj-
ect, Oxfam seemed to be under pressure to have
that component implemented. This did not give
enough time to the partners to form solid work-
ing relationships. The consortia were expected to
implement the Oxfam funded projects in a period
of six months. Documentary evidence indicates
that one of the challenges to the space element
of the project was that some LNHAs were more
interested in getting the resources and paid less
attention to strengthening the platforms (Oxfam,
2021). Nevertheless, the actors that had previous-
ly worked under consortium arrangement were
more successful and have implemented other
projects beyond ELNHA.
Discussion and key lessons
The respondents shared what they considered to
be key lessons from the project. They emphasised
the importance of engaging people that are going
to benefit from intervention in order to address
those issues that affect them. Talking about the
importance of engaging people, a respondent ob-
served:
‘Empowering local humanitarian actors to
deliver humanitarian response in their local-
ities, is very critical if we are to implement
appropriate and timely responses. Because
they understand the context, even when you
say these people are suffering, they know the
kind of suffering, you cannot waste time again
to do a lot of studies and comprehensive stud-
ies that take time and people are dying. For
them, they can be able to deliver appropriate
and timely responses’.
Interview Oxfam, 12-04-2023
It was argued that the biggest lesson was that,
although the external actors can help, they cannot
replace the local actors since they live with the
affected, they understand the context. This is a
boost for the sustainability of interventions in the
community. The local actors, once trusted, given
support, can take the leadership role in human-
itarian response. They can share power equally
with the international actors, therefore, the fear
that many donors have with regard to these actors
is exaggerated. Working with the local actors is
less costly, may give more value for money. Ex-
posure is key for local humanitarian actors, their
participation in the spaces of decision-making
with international organisations is key to breaking
the boundaries between international and local
NGOs.
The documentary evidence indicates that the
project’s capacity strengthening initiatives in-
creased the actors’ ability and confidence to lead
humanitarian response activities and coordination
efforts. The following actors played leading roles:
AWYAD and CEFORD co-chaired the charter for
change; CAFOMI represented other LNHAs at
the comprehensive Refugee Response Framework
(CRRF) steering group (CRRF-SG) and chaired
the National Humanitarian Platform. Community
Empowerment for Creative Innovation (CECI) se-
cured membership to the Network for Empowered
Aid Response (NEAR)’s advocacy working group
- a global movement of CSOs.
In addition, it is important to legislate the local
actors as frontline responders, and the NNGOs
should concentrate more on the mobilisation of
the resources rather that doing the actual imple-
mentation. This is because the local actors may
have a better understanding of the context of the
humanitarian response.
From the evidence, for the participants, the ELH-
NA project was an eye /opportunity opener in
terms of giving them exposure, enabling their
interaction with international actors in the human-
Appendix 85
itarian sector. The project helped with strength-
ening their systems and capacity, facilitated and
enabled them to work in groups to take advantage
of synergies with other local actors.
Based on the evidence, the project achievements
can be attributed to the partner capacity assess-
ment conducted that established existing gaps;
the empowerment, the platform accorded, some
freedom granted to make decisions on how to
implement projects, funding facility, and partner-
ships that enabled co-creation.
The alleged lack of capacity is one of the justifica-
tion for local actors always acting as sub grantees
of NNGOs. This rhymes with some evidence from
the interviews. Some of the respondents said
that one of the things that would make the shift
the power movement difficulty is the mispercep-
tion that the SNGOs do not have the systems to
account for the funds given for development in-
terventions. The ELNHA projects shows with sup-
port through capacity strengthening, local actors
can successfully deliver humanitarian responses,
Based on the survey findings, one of the sourc-
es of the power imbalance was the difference in
capacity between the NNGOs and SNGOs, the
ELHNA project was an attempt at addressing
this. The funding that was given to the project
partners, was a response to the lack of access to
financial resources as a constraint to shifting pow-
er. The terms of access, were such that the part-
ners were to implement their own interventions,
this could be construed as not having as stringent
conditions as those that may come from a con-
text of being sub grantees. Through the capacity
strengthening, the partners were given informa-
tion for example on the standards of humanitarian
response. This feeds into one of the recommenda-
tion given by the survey respondents.
It was highlighted in the survey responses that
some of the NNGOs are reluctant to share power,
the ELNHA was a gesture in contrast with that
observation. The partnership was to an extent
transformative, according to the evidence, there
is likelihood that the ELNHA project to an extent
transformed the relations with OXFAM Uganda.
The exposure to other international actors could
have had the same effect. By the end of the proj-
ect some of the actors had direct interaction with
donors, a number of them received direct funding.
This is in line with the survey recommendation of
doing away with the intermediary role of the NN-
GOs. It was, however not possible, to interrogate
any change in the relations with these donors.
The other recommendation included the strength-
ening of the capacity for local NGOs, capacity
strengthening was a central in the ELNHA project.
Although there was an element of the project part-
ners taking some decisions in terms of what in-
tervention they wanted to make, but possibly not
very substantial, and not in key areas. The project
also created a level of trust between Oxfam and its
partners, based on some evidence where some of
the actors represented OXFAM in Humanitarian
sector fora, sometimes with other international
actors.
Whereas the case study, to an extent, shows a
change in relations with between actors and Ox-
fam, it does not explore changes in relations with
other NNGOs/donors that are attributable to the
project. The gathered evidence only shows that
the participation of the local actors enabled them
to access funds from donors.
Where do we go from here? 86
The ELNHA project experimented a shift from
sub-grantee relationships with local actors to
a partnership model. In some ways it reduced
the degree of control and progressively increase
the decision-making power of the local actors.
In addition, it improved the trust relationship
through capacity strengthening, assisted in re-
source mobilisation, enhancement of technical
and advocacy skills. The project, in trying tackle
some of the central issues in the power imbalance
that is capacity and forum for engagement is an
essential step in the direction towards reducing
power inequalities. During the life course of the
project, LNHAs collaborated and coordinated
among themselves, with other sector stakeholders
and with the host communities for more effective
humanitarian preparedness and response. How-
ever, there is limited evidence that these aspects
continued after the project. Relatedly, what is doc-
umented as the most effective forms of humani-
tarian response that LNHAs adopted such as cash
transfer programming, which support the agency
and resilience of affected people, were fronted by
Oxfam and they depended on its funding.
References
Oxfam (2021). Localisation Through the Lens of
ELNHA Project Model.
Roepstorff, K. (2020). A call for critical reflection
on the localisation agenda in humanitarian ac-
tion. In: Third World Quarterly 41(2), 284-301.
doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2019.1644160
Tonning, M., Clement, C., Mainul, I. O., & Luzze,
F. (2021). Final Evaluation of the Empowering Lo-
cal and National Humanitarian Actors (ELNHA)
Project, Phase II. Oxfam Novib.
Conclusion
Appendix 87
The survey requested respondents to add links to
online resources about the actions they reported
in the survey. This resulted in 50 links to docu-
ments discussing various types of actions, some
of which included further links providing further
information or actions or leading to related ac-
tions. The documents are of varied kinds. Many
are discussions rather than reports of concrete
actions, and have varied forms including blogs,
workshop reports, statements about principles
and future commitments, and interviews. Other
documents are more extensive, offering research
results or detailed recommendations. Many such
discussions remain generic, providing analytical
statements about problematic power relations
that need to be addressed urgently, rather than
identifying specific and concrete steps organi-
sations take, plan to take or advise. Other doc-
uments are more specific, providing research
results or more specific forms of advice regarding
elements of relations.
A wide range of organisation types contribute.
Northern-based organisations, ranging from
consultancies and think tanks to NGO platforms,
prominently contribute to the debate, providing
problem analyses and future directions. Also NN-
GOs contribute, but they are not as much repre-
sented as one might expect given their central role
in the issue. SNGOs are even less present, but
those that are provide some of the bolder analy-
ses and actions.
Problem analysis
Many documents primarily provide analyses of
power relations, expressions of commitment
to change and calls for change, commonly also
providing organisation-level recommendations
on how to collaborate differently. These analyses
and recommendations address all the domains
addressed in this report, ranging from unequal
decision-making in policy to colonial language
and stereotyping. Often the documents address
change at the programmatic level. Some of these
analyses address specific aspects of relations in
brief articles or blogs, for example, speaking of
staff diversity, mutual capacity strengthening,
adjustment training to the local context, and cre-
ating space for Southern NGOs to influence de-
cision-making. Being brief, these discussions are
commonly generic in nature.
Other efforts are more extensive and concrete. For
example, the Movement for Community-led De-
velopment provides an analysis of practice in this
domain. It conceptualises community-led devel-
opment and ‘seeks to identify the current practice
of CLD programming – its strengths and weak-
nesses – so that implementing organisations and
funders can course-correct where needed’ (Veda,
2021: 12). It provides a critical analysis of the lack
of transparency when it comes to organisations’
practices when it comes to the question of what
makes programmes community-led. ‘Accountabil-
ity, sustainability, community-based monitoring
or evaluation, and feedback loops are mostly
missing from program and evaluation reports’ the
report states, adding that ‘details about the nature
of participation and facilitation or about adaptabil-
ity are rarely available’ (ibid: 11).
Principles and strategies
Directly connected with problem analysis is the
identification of principles, often also translated
into strategies. These are differentiated in line
with the differentiation in problem analyses. Many
analyses appear to remain within programme
limits, speaking, for example of ‘drawing on local
capacity’, ‘meaningful participation’, or ‘equitable
recruitment’. Questions of policy are, however,
commonly woven into discussions. Documents
often speak of partnership relations and account-
abilities, typically addressed in terms of values.
Reconsiderations of risks and how to handle these
APPENDIX 5
Analysis of documented initiatives
Where do we go from here? 88
are often discussed, as well as trust as the new
basis for collaboration. Qualities like humility,
listening, and learning are embraced as new ele-
ments of relating. Some qualifying comments can
be made here though. Such assertions generally
constitute calls to action for others or the develop-
ment sector more broadly. NNGOs holding much
of the power over SNGOs are hardly present as
speakers redefining their own futures.
Also funding is commonly woven into the anal-
yses, as a key feature of transformed relations,
with the power of catalysing further transforma-
tion. Documents recognise that funding relations
can define decision-making power for SNGOs,
and discuss it primarily in terms of adjustment
of requirements for SNGOs, while aiming for
transformed relations through changed funding
practices. To facilitate the leadership of SNGOs,
funding should be more flexible, more acces-
sible, more long-term, less restricted, and with
less administrative work. An example is a tool for
assessing community-led-development practice
offered by the Movement for Community-Led
Development, discussed above (The Movement
for Community-Led Development, n.d.). Concrete
discussions of percentages of funding that should
go to SNGOs are, however, never mentioned, and
implications for the roles of NNGOs addressing
their future relevance and added value are hardly
addressed.
Many documents addressing principles and strat-
egies are brief articles, offering mostly general dis-
cussions, with occasionally also some detail. An
example is an article by development consultancy
Humentum on ‘equitable development through
operating models’, which promotes practices like
‘prioritize investment in the professional devel-
opment of local staff’ and ‘commit to and require
full and fair coverage of project-associated ad-
ministration costs’ (Kucinskas, 2022). Some doc-
uments are more extensive, as with Trócaire, an
NNGO that published its ‘partnership and locali-
sation strategy’. This document provides specific
objectives and actions, with the aim to ‘increase
voice and influence of local and national partners
in key spaces nationally and internationally’ com-
mitting to ‘facilitate local actors to actively partici-
pate in coordination and decision-making spaces,
acquire agency and leadership in these spaces,
and influence policies and practices within the
sector’, specifying also specific actions towards
this (Trócaire, 2021).
Another example is of peacebuilding and conflict
prevention NNGO GPPAC, which provides a doc-
ument offering three principles for partnerships,
that reflect collective priority-setting and co-de-
sign of programming and encourage continuous
reflection and adaptation. GPPAC also offers more
detailed discussions addressing how to trans-
form intermediary roles, zooming in on financing
mechanisms that centre on partners and their
needs and agency (Kantowitz, 2021).
NPC, which describes itself as a ‘charity think tank
and consultancy’ offers foundations extensive
guidelines for how to deal with power. The guide-
lines promote such aspects as understanding
one’s power, using innovative approaches like par-
ticipatory grant making, trust-based philanthropy,
place-based funding and redesigning application
and reporting processes. It speaks of sharing
power, building collective power, and wielding
power to benefit the sector or a cause. Discussion
of how to do this is included, urging funders, for
example, to ‘understand who is and who isn’t ap-
plying’, and ‘give multi-year, unrestricted funding’
(Asif, 2020).
A final example is of NGO platform Account-
able Now. In varied documents, it presents its
approach titled ‘Dynamic Accountability’, which
‘make a whole organisation’s way of working
adaptive to these stakeholders’ needs’. It is de-
scribed as transformative and as ‘a systemic
approach to CSO accountability that is grounded
in processes of meaningful engagement with all
stakeholders that are inclusive, participatory and
continuously practiced’, thus seeking to shift pow-
er in relations between CSOs and their stakehold-
ers (Baranda & Büchner, 2019).
Appendix 89
Documents commonly assert a transformative
aim, stressing, for example, principles of equity
and communities in the lead, and a more facili-
tative role for NNGOs. This happens also while
keeping the discussion often within the bounds
of programming. However, in many cases the
degree of transformative aim is ambiguous, as
discussions seek to provide general recommen-
dations on, for example, what types of funding are
advisable (e.g. flexible, unrestricted), how to relate
to partners (e.g. ‘as equals’), without necessarily
calling an end to the ‘fundermediary’ role of NN-
GOs. An exception here is Just Associates (JASS),
which describes itself as an ‘ international femi-
nist movement support organisation rooted in the
Global South’. JASS seeks to transform civil soci-
ety collaboration through recentring movements
and addresses power in many of its communica-
tions on its websites in more challenging terms.
Funding is an important theme here. For example,
JASS calls for funders to ‘be imaginative and ex-
pansive about what and how long you fund’, ‘fund
movement infrastructures’, and ‘think of philan-
thropy as a redistribution of resources to commu-
nities to which it belongs’ (Just Associates, n.d.).
Reports on actions and their effects
Very few documents report on concrete actions
changing power relations. Those that do tend to
centre on specific aspects, generally remaining
within programmatic limits. Some are small-scale
and indirect, for example reporting on courses or
workshops about accountability, capacity strength-
ening or financing mechanisms, often including
lessons learnt, reflections, and recommendations.
Some documents are brief articles, as with a blog
reporting about capacity strengthening as part of
exit strategies, supporting SNGOs to take over
NNGO-administered programmes (Lemma &
Morris, 2022).
A few documents are more extensive, as with a
report on mutual capacity strengthening by con-
sultancy INTRAC and NNGO Pax. This report
illustrates the transformative quality of joint learn-
ing for relations, and charts lessons regarding,
e.g., the political dimensions of shared learning,
and what it takes in terms of commitment and
form (Morris & Hoogenboom, 2022).
An exception of an action at policy level is the
Local Coalition Accelerator (LCA), an initiative of
NNGO the Share Trust and the Warande Advisory
Centre, a consultancy in Kenya. The LCA involves
supporting ‘coalitions of local actors who can
effectively co-design and implement holistic, ev-
idence-based programming at scale to address
systemic, multi-sectoral problems’, and consol-
idating individual organisations into joint plat-
forms that bilaterals can fund, thus supporting
their development as recipients of direct funding
(The Share Trust, n.d.).
Only one report provided analyses of effects of
actions. A study commissioned by Both ENDS
and DOB Ecology analysed the functioning and
effectiveness of small grants funds - which are
seen as a way of redressing ‘power imbalances
[…] by strengthening disempowered groups so
they can regain power and control over their own
lives and simultaneously create space to challenge
existing power structures’. The report shows how
small grants contribute to success at the level of
organisations and networks, speaking of building
of organisations and their capacity, self-esteem,
recognition, decision-making power and engage-
ment in, and creation of, larger networks or move-
ments. Impact in society reported in the study is
anecdotal, and the authors discuss measurement
challenges and the need for realistic indicators
(Kraan & Wensing, 2019).
Conclusion
Most of the documents involve problem analysis
and strategy development regarding program-
ming. They mostly do so from Northern perspec-
tives, be it that NNGOs are less prominently pres-
ent in the documents shared through the survey
than consultancies, think tanks, and platforms.
Some documents do address policy, and SNGOs
appear to be relatively strongly represented in
these. Financial dependence and restricted fund-
ing are key topics in many of the documents, but
this theme is mostly woven into broader discus-
Where do we go from here? 90
sions addressing programming and policy, keep-
ing away from discussions of more fundamental
funding transformations.
Across the board then, shifting power is em-
braced, but this appears to lead to varied degrees
of reconsideration of relations and practices. On
specific themes, concrete directions and lessons
learnt are provided. However, concrete actions to
shift power are barely reported or assessed. Thus,
while it appears that NNGOs are actively engag-
ing with the issue, transparency is lacking. Impor-
tantly, transformative and encouraging exemplars
are scarce and seem to be more easily found with
other actors than NNGOs. More broadly, docu-
ments by and large remain silent on questions
sensitive to NNGOs, regarding their continued
role, relevance, and funding base. Colonial lan-
guage and stereotyping are rarely mentioned. At
the same time, Northern actors, frequently speak
of a need for new values of humility and trust
on their part. This does indicate that some form
of transformation in culture and identity is rec-
ognised to be overdue – without, as yet, fully envi-
sioning implications.
References
Asif, F., Kelly-Dean, O., Boswell, K. & Kail, A.
(2020). A rebalancing act: How funders can
address power dynamics. Available at: nppro-
duction.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/
uploads/2020/03/Rebalancing-Act-Power-Dy-
namics.pdf (Accessed on 14 June 2023)
Baranda, E. & Büchner, I. (2019). Dynamic ac-
countability: Changing approaches to CSO ac-
countability. Available at: www.csostandard.org/
wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Dynamic-Ac-
countability_Accountable-Now.pdf (Accessed
on 14 June 2023)
Just Associates. (n.d.). Feminist funding. Available
at: justassociates.org/resource_cat/femi-
nist-funding (Accessed on 14 June 2023)
Kantowitz, R., van Beijnum, M. & Poiré, M. L.
(2021). Designing effective financing for peace-
building: Financing mechanisms to support
local peacebuilders. Available at: gppac.net/
files/2021-10/Working-paper-Financing-Mecha-
nism-Rapport-v1%5B37%5D.pdf (Accessed on
14 June 2023)
Kraan, K. & Wensing, A. (2019). Putting people
first: The transformational impact of small grant
funds. Available at: www.bothends.org/upload-
ed_files/document/Putting_People_First.pdf
(Accessed on 14 June 2023)
Kucinskas, K. (2022). Equitable development
through operating models. Available at: hu-
mentum.org/blog-media/equitable-develop-
ment-through-operating-models (Accessed on
14 June 2023)
Lemma, S. and Morris, L. (2022). Shifting the
power while strengthening the resilience of CSOs
in Ethiopia. Available at: www.intrac.org/shift-
ing-the-power-while-capacity-building-for-ex-
it-in-ethiopia/ (Accessed on 14 June 2023)
Morris, L. & Hoogenboom, J. (2022). The power of
Connection: A PAX joint learning pilot with part-
ners (Paper No. 14). Available at: www.intrac.
org/resources/praxis-series-paper-no-14-the-
power-of-connection-a-pax-joint-learning-pilot-
with-partners (Accessed on 14 June 2023)
The Movement for Community-Led Development.
(n.d.). The CLD assessment tool: An overview
(Excel). Available: mcld.org/download-the-
scoping-tool (Accessed on 14 June 2023)
The Share Trust. (n.d.). Local coalition accelera-
tor. Available at: thesharetrust.org/resourc-
es/2021/2/19/local-coalition-accelerator (Ac-
cessed on 14 June 2023)
Trócaire (2021). Partnership and localisation strate-
gy: 2021-2025. Available at: www.trocaire.org/
wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Trocaire-Partner-
ship-and-Localisation-Strategy-2021-2025-En-
glish.pdf?type=policy (Accessed on 14 June
2023)
Veda, G., Trandafili, H., Cruz Zuniga, M., Edmond,
J., Mecklenburg, N., Cloete, E., Delgadillo, D.
& Lyness, R. (2021). Unpacking community-led
development: A study of 173 programs across
65 countries. Available at: mcld.org/down-
load-the-unpacking-cld-report (Accessed on 14
June 2023)
1. Executive summary 91
NICOLA BANKS
BADRU BUKENYA
WILLEM ELBERS
INNOCENT KAMYA
EMMANUEL KUMI
LAU SCHULPEN
GIJS VAN SELM
MARGIT VAN WESSEL
THOMAS YEBOAH