How are we learning in North-to-South NGO partnerships?

The challenge of learning in North-to-South NGO partnerships was the issue for this Exchange lunchtime discussion, following on from a workshop organised by BOND and Exchange in March 2003.

Vicky Brehm from INTRAC (The International NGO Training and Research Centre) presented findings from a four-year research project that looked at the nature of the relationships between Northern and Southern NGOs with recommendations to explore more genuine, consistent and creative ways of partnering. This work is soon to be published by INTRAC as ‘Autonomy or Dependence? Case Studies of North South NGO Partnerships’.

Key elements on learning in partnerships between NGOs in international development today were added by Dr Rob Vincent from Exchange, drawing from the recently published BOND/Exchange briefing paper Learning in partnerships (PDF).

Brehm’s research outlined a spectrum of different types of partnerships, ranging from funding only relationships with limited dialogue to non-funding relationships that share a broad agenda, dialogue and joint advocacy. There are also differing levels of trust: high trust occurs where there are similar levels of capacity; no trust occurs where there is a mismatch of capacity. In addition, a mismatch in size and capacity between large Northern NGOs and smaller under-resourced Southern NGOs often creates a power imbalance and makes it difficult to move beyond resource distribution.

Funding is a key motive for partnership for some Southern NGOs in resource poor countries. The research found this was the case for NGOs in Tanzania and Cambodia. In Brazil however, the research found more scope for local resource mobilisation. While NGOs in Brazil still wanted funding, they also felt like Northern NGOs had stood by them during the military dictatorship, which brought an added dimension to the partnerships.

The research also found a tension between relationships and results. Many Northern NGOs were much more results orientated and saw partnerships as a means to an end. Southern NGOs tended to give more emphasis to the quality of the relationship itself as a determinant of whether the relationship has been successful. They also expressed a need for more capacity development input from Northern NGOs and more dialogue and joint learning in the context of long-term relationships.

Southern NGOs also want more accountability from Northern NGOs, and more transparency about how decisions are reached and agendas are set. On the questions of who was setting the agenda, one participant noted: ‘‘We don’t consider what everyone is bringing to the table. Southern NGOs bring Southern perspectives and expertise from the South and Northern NGOs gain from that. A lot of Northern NGOs could not survive without their partners but this is never highlighted.’’

‘Autonomy’ for an organisation means having the confidence and the ability to say no to certain conditions. According to the research, Northern NGOs defined autonomy in terms of an organisation being in charge of its own destiny, which for Southern NGOs means being able to say no to funding. Indeed, one participant from Zimbabwe noted that his organisation had decided to refuse project funding where it was too top down and directive.

One other key issue was the way that partnerships in practice often meant key individuals in Southern organisations built relationships with Northern NGOs, rather than the relationship being more broadly organisational and involving more staff.

Rob Vincent drew out some of the learning challenges in NGO partnerships from the recent BOND/Exchange briefing paper. While funding relationships and the related issues of power make learning a challenge, it is essential to participatory development processes that aim to be people centred, value driven and inclusive. It is important to build on existing opportunities for learning, which may include some of the reflection processes involved in monitoring and evaluation. At the same time it is important to find appropriate methods of assessment and accountability that value the perceptions of those lower down the chain. The learning aspect of evaluation may employ a ‘self-assessment approach compared to the upwards accountability to donors that is often framed in externally defined terms.

If reflection is to become part of everyday practice, learning has to be made explicit in project proposals and job descriptions, and time and space are needed to make reflection a reality. There is also a need to deal with the barriers thrown up by organisational culture, and to be aware of power relationships. Vincent noted the double-edged character of participation and learning, and that participants at the BOND/Exchange workshop had expressed the need for an understanding of power and ways of practically moving forward in this regard.

Discussion: Is there scope for moving to ‘beyond funding’ partnerships or is this unrealistic?

In principle Northern NGOs hope they will continue in a post funding partnership, but in fact after funding finishes often the purpose for the relationship ceases to exist. At the same time, if the role of Northern NGOs as intermediary funders is being called into question, what is the role for Northern NGOs? Some participants felt that clarity about the kinds of relationships was important: relationships may range from being equitable to more hierarchical in different circumstances and this needed to be clear.

One participant from a Southern NGO noted: ‘Real partnerships means trust in relationships and building it over years – then it works.’ If partnership started with money and funds, rather than values, it was very hard to change the nature of the relationship to move beyond this over time. Another participant noted that networks are providing greater scope for mutual learning as they move beyond the donor recipient role. Examples of more ‘mutual’ partnership working included:

Funding is vital to support spaces for reflection and learning opportunities, discussion participants emphasised, and it was noted that there is increasing donor awareness in this area - an ‘open door’ for people to build it into proposals.

Learning on the ground in the South is important and one participant suggested finding ways of measuring knowledge and social capital which occurs in partnerships so that a financial focus becomes less distinct. Another participant noted that in talking of learning and partnership we needed to more clearly include so-called ‘beneficiaries’ into this thinking and feedback.