There is a feeling that the growing standardisation of aid policies and procedures among northern donors, including non-governmental organisations (NGOs), is not contributing to building strong local civil society organisations, enhancing local ownership, or contributing to strong partnerships.

Part of a wider study on the aid chain - from donors in the UK to villages in South Africa and Uganda - collaborative research by the Community Development Resource Network, ActionAid Uganda, the Makerere Institute of Social Research and Oxford Brookes University gathered evidence on the ideologies adopted and procedures used by donors to see how they might learn from experience.

Research focused on questions such as: what is it like to be at the receiving end of aid? How do the frameworks and language used, tight timelines and stringent budgetary requirements shape local responses and affect development work?

Key research findings include:

• Accessing donor funding requires Ugandan NGOs to fit their work to tight, donor-determined plans and uniform donor prescriptions.
• The focus is on strategic partnerships to meet Millennium Development Goals rather than responsive funding for local NGO agendas.
• Changing donor-government relations has led donors to redefine their expectations of the roles NGOs should play - while expecting NGOs to access funding for their work from national and local government they also expect NGOs to be watchdogs of government.
• There is a shift from service delivery to rights based work, advocacy and monitoring government.
• The intense competition for funding between NGOs makes them susceptible to donor demands which reduces local autonomy, analysis and independence.
• Partnerships are superficial as NGOs struggle to meet donor accountability requirements. To secure future funding they hide real problems in the relationships and the programmes.

Key lessons:

• NGOs and donors have found different ways of working that build sound relationships for improving practice: learning from them is essential.
• Tools for planning, appraisal, reporting and evaluation carry cultural values and assumptions about change and development and will not necessarily fit local contexts.
• The focus on targets and short-term impacts contradicts the idea of working with the causes and effects of long-term poverty and marginalisation: longer-term frames and open ways of assessing progress are needed for development work.
• With donors in charge, dysfunctional relationships often develop: ways to change the attitudes and behaviour of donors and those they fund need exploring.
• Change is not linear, controllable or quick. Alternative approaches are needed if poverty is to be overcome through strong, autonomous local organisations.
• Issues of identity, who owns the agenda, who benefits and how the voices of those most affected shape thinking should be placed at the centre of development agendas.
• Paperwork, systems of control and directives cannot replace the need for trust, skills of judgment, flexibility, and the ability to listen and learn from those most in need.

Source(s):
‘Politics is best left to politicians, civil society in a period of transition in Uganda: challenges and prospects’ by John de Coninck, Community Development Research Network, 2004
‘The Impact of Western management Tools on southern NGOs: some contextual notes by Rosemary Adong, Community Development Research Network, 2004 Full document.
‘Working together or undermining each other, development actors and funding flows’ by Tina Wallace, 2004 Full document.

Funded by: UK Department for International Development, Nuffield Foundation, Action Aid Uganda

id21 Research Highlight: 22 July 2005

Further Information:
Tina Wallace
Queen Elizabeth House
Oxford University
21 St. Giles
Oxford OX1 3LA, UK

Contact the contributor: Tinawallace11@aol.com

Oxford Brookes University, UK

Rosemary Adong and John de Coninck
Community Development Resource Network (CDRN)
P.O. Box 3791
Kampala
Uganda

Contact the contributor: rosemary@cdrn.or.ug

Other related links:
'Evaluations, strategic planning and log-frames – donor-imposed straitjackets on local NGOs?'