NGO Week saw the sector calling for more control over funding and policies, reports Aspasia Karras
THE choice of Rand Afrikaans University as the venue for NGO Week set the tone for the ironic paradigm shift the sector has been forced to make since 1994.
The megalithic laager hosted 500 delegates, representing an estimated 30 000 non- governmental organisations (NGOs) in South Africa. Formed in an “unashamedly” anti- government spirit, they met to discuss the critical issues facing them today, including the fact that many old comrades are now in government.
Key issues were the need to define the confusing relationship with the government; to understand where the funds (or lack thereof) are coming from; and to develop some cohesion in the sector to position themselves strategically in the policy- making processes.
While Minister of Public Works Jeff Radebe acknowledged that NGOs are autonomous and play a critical role in the development process, the lines of authority and communication are never clear. And in the wake of the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP), and attempts to save the situation through new consultations about a National Development Agency (NDA) – which will attempt to formalise interaction between the government and NGOs – defining relationships becomes more important than ever.
Kumi Naidoo, executive director of the South African National NGO Coalition, which convened the conference, says: “Next year, we must come out fighting.”
He argues for a critical re-evaluation of the NGO sector to enable them to take on the practical challenges facing them.
The issues of human resource development, financial management, strategic planning and globalisation are, in fact, the same challenges facing South African organisations unilaterally.
Naidoo says: “First, NGOs must recognise that they are not intended to be mass providers of services, but rather creative entities, generating new, more sustainable forms of development. Our weakness is that we have not learnt how to translate localised experiments into policy. So policy is made in a vacuum.”
What Naidoo is not doing is allowing himself and others to be drawn into victim talk. “How can we be effective, professional and coherent if we see ourselves as victims? Yes, the environment has changed, and we have seen the death of some really good NGOs. But we need to become pro-active and really understand our environment.”
A sentiment heartily endorsed by Community Agency for Social Enquiry (Case) director Dr David Everatt. “For 11 years Case has been recording the thoughts and aspirations of the poorest of the poor. In the new context, when we compete for tenders against private, market-driven companies, it’s like chalk and cheese. Both in quality and quantity we are far more strategically positioned to deliver on the needs of the new government.”
But he argues that it is convenient rhetoric on the part of civil society to keep NGOs under pressure, preventing them from being seen as professional, competent entities.
“The image of NGOs staffed by excited young graduates, should be challenged. Many NGOs like Immsa, Cals, LAPC, and Idasa are large, viable organisations, staffed by committed professionals who have chosen to stay out of the government. And it is their commitment that is abused, as many people expect NGOs to work for free.”
The critical issue, however, for most NGOs is funding. Case produced a book called Tango in the Dark to highlight some of the complicated scenarios that emerged in funding structures of different departments and the RDP.
Naidoo is explicit about the failure of the government, in the first instance, to develop a clear policy as to whom international aid agencies should be funding, and then, after taking a large percentage of the pot, failing to spend it.
“It was a tragic error and resulted in many NGOs going to the wall. Of course international agencies have so much more interest in funding government. Regardless of the government’s policy to encourage foreign donors to work directly with NGOs, it is not happening.”
Self-sustainability is possible for some NGOs such as Case, which have always charged for their work, albeit at preferential rates for certain clients, through core funding.
But, says Everatt: “Viability depends on what the NGO does. You cannot charge impoverished communities, you have to be funded.”
This makes the development of the NDA even more important, as it will co-ordinate central government disbursement of funds to NGOs. Case nevertheless broke even last year – simply by beginning to charge what it really costs to do the job.
Everatt argues that NGOs and community-based organisations (CBOs) need to focus and regroup themselves around specialised areas of activity. In other words, rationalise, to avoid duplication and to leverage influence as a sector.
The coalition’s bottom line is that NGOs cannot leave it up to the government but must start to call the shots. If they mobilise as a sector, they can begin to make an impact.
For example, Naidoo is proposing a two-track tendering system, which will give preference to voluntary organisations first, so that resources really go back into the community.
This is a point also made by Everatt, especially in terms of parastatals that continue to get large tax grants.
Naidoo concludes: “NGOs are in the market place. Just because they are not profit- oriented does not mean they are not players. We leverage massive social capital, in terms of the work we do, and we have substantial consumer power as a collective. If you just think of the accumulated value of the pension funds of 2 000 NGOs, valued at R500- million, you can see the point.”
The coalition wants to draw on the precedent of the trade unions and is exploring setting up a national investment fund.
Clearly the NGO sector wants to move the tango on to the fast lane and into broad daylight; NGO Week may have been just the right catalyst.