Tigwepo
Message from our CEO - Barbara Nost
Sustainability continues to dominate the conversation between donors and Zambian civil society organisations sitting on the receiving end of donor aid. Its meaning is often not discussed in-depth and civil society organisations are not probed sufficiently to disclose their thoughts on how to sustain their organisations beyond donor funding. Once the box is ticked, the conversation on sustainability falls by the way side, as organisations are too busy implementing their programmes to demonstrate outcomes as a precondition for future funding. The consequences for not achieving sustainability are not thought through as long as the organisation feels it is in a comfortable place. Inertia starts to kick in. Continuous funding often creates a vicious dependency cycle followed by an unbalanced power relationship between those giving and those receiving. The term sustainability therefore merely remains a flimsy concept for both parties.
At ZGF we have become most concerned with organisational sustainability and how organisations continue functioning in view of decreasing financial support from donor agencies. Resource mobilisation trainings have become extremely popular over the recent past, demonstrating that civil society organisations are interested in finding ways of escaping the trap of being entirely dependent on foreign donor assistance. Some of the answers can be found in diversification, seeking alternative ways of tapping into new alternative funding sources at regional and international level, including the philanthropic sector. There is a myriad of options available for civil society organisations, but this can only be done if an organisation has the resources to set aside at least a person or a team to research, connect to funders and create working relationships, not only to profile the organisation but also to explore new ways of collaboration with like-minded organisations and funders.
However, none of the local Zambian organisations I know have a dedicated person in their team that exclusively looks at this important aspect of an organisation. Ideally, from my perspective and like in the business world, overhead costs should not be dictated by donors and thus should be non-negotiable. Local organsations must be given a leeway to propose a reasonable overhead costs to be able to pay for a dedicated person tasked to help the leadership shape the future of the organisation, in addition to the support staff necessary to make the organisation function well as required by law. It is often forgotten that that considerable pressure is exerted on local organisations to show value for money for the grant received. It should also be in the interest of a donor to assist the organisation to sustain operations if the organisation has demonstrated it can meaningfully contribute to bring about social change.
As much as I agree that funding should not be entirely focused on building an organisation without looking at what the organisation achieves, much more support, including moral support, should be given to organisations to design their own systems to help them work their way out of dependency. Only an organisation with robust systems will be able to comfortably negotiate a reasonable overhead. Only organisations operating with a reasonable overhead will be able to produce as per donor expectation. The same organisations are the future social entrepreneurs in Zambia, expected to carry on with the work initially funded by foreign donors. The solution seems to be simple, but we keep on wondering why the debate between civil society and donors does not advance.
2 Tigwepo - March, 2017
"I agree that funding should not be entirely focused on building an organisation without looking at what the organisation achieves....."