By Debra Nhokwara and Tafadzwa Munyaka
NEW YORK, Feb 16 2024 – In the realm of public discourse, non-profit organizations often serve as the torchbearers of societal change, championing causes ranging from environmental conservation to social justice. Yet, beneath the altruistic facade lies a complex interplay of interests, where non-profit funding emerges as a potent tool for shaping the narrative and driving the agenda.

As we delve into the depths of this seemingly benevolent sector, it becomes evident that the allocation of funds to non-profits is far from arbitrary.

Rather, it serves as a strategic maneuver by various entities, each seeking to advance its unique vision and influence public opinion. Our contention, as many have opined, is to explore how non-profits, fueled by financial support, navigate the delicate balance between advocacy and the potential distortion of public discourse.

At the heart of the matter is the question of intentionality. Do non-profits genuinely embody the causes they champion, or do they become pawns in a larger game of influence?

By examining case studies and patterns in funding distribution, we can uncover the motivations behind the financial support that drives these organizations. This exploration will underscore the significance of transparency and accountability in ensuring that non-profits remain true to their mission and avoid unwittingly becoming instruments of agenda-driven manipulation.

As nations strive for progress and prosperity, the international donor community’s approach to providing aid and development assistance reveals a disconcerting inconsistency–one that sets different rules and conditionalities based on the regions involved

How does the selective support of certain causes over others shape the national discourse? What implications does this have for marginalized voices and underrepresented issues? By analyzing the ripple effects of non-profit funding on the agenda-setting process, we can better understand the mechanisms at play and work towards a more equitable and inclusive public dialogue.

In confronting these challenging questions, this article invites readers to reconsider their perceptions of non-profits as mere conduits for positive change.

Instead, we encourage a nuanced examination of the funding mechanisms that underpin these organizations, emphasizing the need for a vigilant and discerning public to safeguard the integrity of the causes they hold dear. As we navigate the landscape of non-profit activism, let us peel back the layers and unveil the intricate dance between funding and agenda setting that shapes the narratives of our time.

How are funders influencing non-profits programming?

In the labyrinth of non-profit landscapes, financial sustenance is the lifeblood that allows organizations to translate their ideals into tangible action. However, the allocation of funds is not a mere administrative task; it is a deliberate and calculated strategy that often aligns with the interests of donors, thereby shaping the trajectory of public discourse.

To the potential recipients of the funding, they have to strategically position themselves, selling their projects or programs as best fits for the stated funding criteria, oftentimes, way off the mark of their missions or values. Consider, for instance, the funding patterns in environmental advocacy.

Nonprofits dedicated to climate change may find themselves in a delicate dance, balancing the imperative to address the impending ecological crisis with the preferences of their financial backers.

Corporations with vested interests in certain environmental policies may selectively fund organizations that align with their profit-driven agendas, inadvertently steering the narrative away from holistic, sustainable solutions. This dynamic underscores the critical need for transparency within the nonprofit sector, as the sources of funding can significantly influence the prioritization of issues on the public agenda.

Moreover, the intentional or unintentional distortion of advocacy goals becomes apparent when examining the delicate relationship between nonprofits and government funding.

Organizations reliant on governmental grants may find themselves navigating a minefield of compliance, where the agenda-setting power of funding extends to the very policies that shape their advocacy landscape.

In such instances, the risk of inadvertent co-option is palpable, as the alignment of non-profit objectives with government priorities may compromise the independence necessary for effective societal change. Such scenarios lead to a mismatch between the advocacy issues and development aspirations of the community on one hand with the nonprofits funding desires on the other.

To truly comprehend the implications of non-profit funding as an agenda-setting tool, we must also turn our gaze inward, examining the choices made by individual donors.

Philanthropists, driven by personal convictions and values, may channel their resources toward causes that resonate with their worldview. While this may foster diversity in advocacy, it also introduces an inherent bias that echoes through the public discourse, emphasizing certain issues at the expense of others.

Popular views without financial backing are discarded for the fashionable ones dangled by those who wield the purse or strings to the funding so coveted by nonprofits.

As we grapple with these intricacies, the urgency of fostering a culture of accountability within the non-profit sector becomes paramount. Organizations must not only be transparent about their funding sources but also actively scrutinize the ethical implications of their financial relationships.

By doing so, they can ensure that their advocacy remains genuine and aligned with the true needs of the communities they serve. Furthermore, in light of many documented scandals involving donor international organizations in Africa, we need to ask ourselves tough questions, like, whose interests are being advanced and how we arrived at agreeing to champion them.

What does History tell us?

The history of non-profit organizations in Africa is intricately woven into the fabric of the continent’s socio-political landscape. As Africa navigated its post-colonial era, a burgeoning need for social change and development gave rise to a diverse array of non-profit entities.

These organizations, fueled by a commitment to addressing pressing issues, have played a pivotal role in shaping the continent’s destiny, identity, and standpoint(s) regarding access to funding mechanisms.

The dynamic relationship between African non-profits and international organizations in agenda setting to address, inter alia, poverty, healthcare, education, and governance issues in Africa has been complex, multifaceted and largely one-sided.

This begs the question that has been asked by several others before us without satisfactory answers, “what are NGOs really doing in Africa?” Historically, the power dynamics have often leaned towards international organizations, even though the roles and influence of African non-profits have evolved over time.

It is common cause that in the aftermath of colonial rule, African nations grappled with the challenge of nation-building and establishing robust governance structures.

Nonprofits emerged as instrumental agents of change, serving as conduits for both local and international support. As the New African puts it, this international support appears as “a prominent part of the ‘development machine’, a vast institutional and disciplinary nexus of official agencies, practitioners, consultants, scholars, and other miscellaneous experts producing and consuming knowledge about the ‘developing world’”.

During this period, grassroots movements and community-based organizations proliferated, fueled by the desire to address the unique challenges faced by diverse African societies marked by an exponential increase in the presence of Western NGOs as well in Africa. Challenges faced by these burgeoning non-profits relating to funding and agenda setting are essentially still the same, just different days but same problems.

The latter half of the 20th century to present times, has seen a surge in international solidarity and aid efforts directed towards Africa. Non-profit organizations are conduits for this support, channeling resources to address pressing issues.

The relationships formed during this era have presented a continuity of the dependency syndrome and a stark realization that the Global North lacks the moral and political will to constructively assist Africa address her myriad of problems.

Maybe, we need to revisit the development discourse to unravel how agenda setting has been an instrument used to determine how African non-profits access funding. Understanding this discourse and historical journey is crucial for unveiling the power play inherent in non-profit or development funding as a strategic tool for agenda setting on the continent.

A tale of varied rules and conditionalities

The realm of international development, ostensibly guided by principles of equality and global cooperation, often belies a stark reality of double standards. As nations strive for progress and prosperity, the international donor community’s approach to providing aid and development assistance reveals a disconcerting inconsistency–one that sets different rules and conditionalities based on the regions involved.

When it comes to human rights and governance, the double standards within international development become even more glaring. Conditions related to democratic governance, human rights, and rule of law are inconsistently applied, often reflecting the geopolitical interests of the donor countries.

Some non-profits in specific nations receive aid with a blind eye turned to issues of governance and human rights abuses, while others face stringent scrutiny, fostering a sense of injustice and reinforcing the perception that the principles guiding international development are, in fact, malleable.

We have seen this happen with staff of organizations that have violated the very people they should be serving without a reciprocal free in funding or access to it. Yet, if tables were turned and a local non-profit organization is found wanting, “how these issues are handled varies wildly”.

Addressing these double standards within international development requires a collective reevaluation of the principles guiding aid and assistance.

It calls for a commitment to equity, transparency, and consistency in applying conditions. Only through a more just and impartial approach can the international community hope to foster genuine global development that transcends geopolitical considerations and prioritizes the well-being of all nations, regardless of their geographical location or economic standing.

The way forward

Who gets to determine what issue is worth funding? The one with the money will want to exert control over how their funds are utilized. The community facing a particular issue would want to prioritize solving that problem, albeit without resources to do so.

We believe this is one of the conundrums local non-profits are faced with on a daily basis. The result is always the same, dance to the tune of one who pays the piper! However, ideally, we envisage a move towards participatory grantmaking or better still, access to unrestricted funding.

Due diligence still has to be done to ensure recipients are fiscally responsible. The removal of restrictive conditionalities might give local non-profits and the communities they serve the willpower to address their most pressing and urgent needs as defined by lived experiences. Again, it is a discourse that we are ready to engage in and learn from others too as we advocate for improved funding mechanisms.

As engaged citizens, advocates, and stakeholders in the pursuit of positive change, it is imperative that we actively participate in reshaping the landscape of non-profit activism. We encourage readers to scrutinize the sources of funding supporting the causes they hold dear and demand transparency from the non-profit sector.

By engaging in conversations about the influence of funders on non-profit programming and agenda setting, we can collectively foster a culture of accountability within the sector. As we advocate for a shift towards participatory grantmaking and unrestricted funding, we should empower local non-profits to address their communities’ most pressing needs authentically.

This calls for a reevaluation of the current funding structures and a commitment to equity, transparency, and consistency in applying conditions, particularly within the realm of international development.

By doing so, we can work towards a more just and impartial approach that prioritizes the well-being of all nations, irrespective of their geographical location or economic standing. By championing transparency, accountability, and equitable funding practices, we can contribute to a more authentic and impactful non-profit sector that truly serves the needs of the communities it aims to uplift.

The nexus between non-profit funding and agenda setting is a multifaceted phenomenon that demands our attention. To preserve the integrity of the causes championed by these organizations, we must remain vigilant, questioning the motivations behind funding decisions and advocating for transparency.

Only by unraveling the complexities of non-profit financing can we pave the way for a more equitable, inclusive, and authentic public discourse—one that transcends the strategic play of funding and genuinely addresses the pressing issues of our time.

Debra Nhokwara is a multi-disciplinary content creator who works in the social impact industry.

Tafadzwa Munyaka is a nonprofit/social change professional with crosscutting expertise in fundraising, program management, and child rights advocacy.

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 16 2024 – The United Nations is heading towards a severe cash crisis forcing the world body “to implement aggressive cash conservation measures to avert a default in meeting the legal obligations of the Organization”.

Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has drawn attention to “the unfortunate deteriorating financial situation of our regular budget operations”.

UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq told IPS that in order to ensure liquidity for paying staff salaries, certain difficult steps will be necessary. Hiring restrictions will need to be maintained during 2024, he said.

Restrictions in non-post spending will also be critical to bridge the liquidity gap. As a result, until the situation improves, official travel will need to be limited to the most essential activities, he said.

“Purchases of goods and services will be postponed, unless absolutely critical. Hiring of consultants and experts will be minimized to the extent feasible”.

And most construction and maintenance projects will be suspended, except where the slowing down of major construction projects would result in significant future additional expenses.

“We will implement energy-saving and other measures to reduce utility bills and curtail expenses on managing facilities. Non-essential security expenses will also be curtailed, as long as they do not impact the safety of our premises, assets and of our personnel and delegates,” said Haq.

The crisis is blamed on most member states who have either delayed or absconded on their annual dues – called assessed contributions— to the world body.

UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters, as of February 15, only 58 out of 193 Member States have paid in full.

The main cause of the liquidity crisis: not all Member States pay their assessments in full. In 2023, the UN collected 82.3 per cent of the year’s assessment, the lowest in the last five years. Only 142 Member States paid their dues in full – again, the lowest in the last five years. As a result, year-end arrears climbed to $859 million, up from $330 million in 2022.

A secondary cause of the liquidity crisis relates to a shift in the payment patterns of Member States, including the unpredictability of both the timing and the amounts of anticipated collections. In 2023, collections trailed estimates throughout most of the year. The UN ended the year $529 million short of anticipated collections.

The cash crunch is also having a negative impact on Geneva, home to several UN agencies.

According to the UN, Geneva houses around 40 international organizations, 180 permanent missions and more than 400 NGOs. In addition to the UN entities headquartered there, most UN funds, programmes and agencies maintain regional offices or liaison offices there.

Ian Richards, an economist at the Geneva-based UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and former President of the Coordinating Committee of International Staff Unions and Associations, told IPS the UN had to close its Geneva campus for three weeks over Christmas and “we are told that further closures are likely”.

“Meanwhile some translation staff have been told they can’t take any leave at all until August, which we believe is more a symptom of poor management. Of great concern is that staff, mainly young, with temporary contracts, are being let go,” said Richards.

In his letter to staffers, Guterres said: “We expect the regular budget liquidity situation to be far more challenging in 2024, as we are starting with very little cash. In order to avoid a payment default throughout the year, while dealing with the unpredictability of intra-year collections, our initial estimates are that we will need to conserve around $350 million in cash by slowing down and reducing spending until we have certainty that we have enough cash to meet our obligations each month.”

This means, “ we will have to introduce spending restrictions right away or risk running out of cash by August, including the liquidity reserves and the surplus cash of closed tribunals.”

“Protecting staff from the liquidity crisis to the maximum extent is a priority for me. I have repeatedly made every effort to do so over the years and I will not relent in doing everything possible to mitigate any pressure on you”.

However, the reality is that personnel costs account for more than 70 per cent of the regular budget. In order to ensure liquidity for paying staff salaries, certain difficult steps will be necessary. Hiring restrictions will need to be maintained during 2024.

“I am keenly aware that this will have a knock-on effect. High vacancies put an added burden on staff – especially those who work in entities with high vacancy rates. This step is essential if we are to have any hope of ensuring sufficient cash inflows,” declared Guterres.

Meanwhile, in a joint statement released early this week, Louis Charbonneau, United Nations Director, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Widad Franco, UN Advocacy Officer, HRW, warned that a cash crunch and hiring freeze at the United Nations threaten to hinder UN human rights investigations in places like Sudan, Ukraine, and Syria.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/02/13/uns-financial-troubles-jeopardize-critical-human-rights-work

Delegations from China, Russia, Cuba, and others have been trying for years to defund UN human rights work in the General Assembly’s Fifth Committee, which oversees the budget.

Their attempts in December to block funding for investigations into grave human rights abuses in Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Russia, Nicaragua and elsewhere failed.

The UN leadership and member countries, HRW said, should ensure that the UN’s human rights teams have funding and staff to fulfill their mandates. And governments that haven’t paid their assessed contributions should pay up.

Guterres has also written to Member States to inform them of the situation and to alert them that the UN will be forced to implement aggressive cash conservation measures to avert a default in meeting the legal obligations of the Organization.

He also reminded them that the ultimate responsibility for our financial health rests with Member States, and he encouraged them to pay in full and on time.

“I have asked relevant senior managers to engage with Member States and outline the potential impact on our ability deliver on our mandates, including support to intergovernmental meetings across duty stations. The Department of Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance will work with senior managers to help deal with the impact of these measures. We will monitor the cash flows carefully and adapt to the evolving liquidity situation”.

“Member States have been very supportive of my proposals regarding the budget for 2024 and have made positive decisions on initiatives, such as establishing two new offices for Anti-Racism and for Data Protection, increasing funding for core activities of UNRWA, increasing resources for development and human rights activities and strengthening the Peacebuilding Fund with assessed contributions from 2025”.

However, budgets approved without adequate cash to execute them undermine the essence of the process, declared Guterres.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Yasmine Sherif
NEW YORK, Feb 16 2024 (IPS-Partners)

As we lead into the Africa Year of Education, and under the leadership of Africa, world leaders have an opportunity to solidify commitments to ‘Educate an Africa Fit for the 21st Century’. That means to empower Africa to deliver on the goals outlined in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Paris Agreement and Convention on the Rights of the Child, and to invest in an end to inequity through the power of quality education and lifelong learning.

With the right opportunities, the current accomplishments and future potential of Africa are limitless. Sadly, inequity accompanied by armed conflicts, climate change, forced displacement, poverty traps and other factors continue to derail development gains and push children to the margins.

Approximately 54% of crisis-affected children worldwide live in Sub-Saharan Africa, according to Education Cannot Wait’s Global Estimates Study. The region has experienced a multi-million increase in the number of children affected by crises, primarily driven by large-scale droughts in Eastern Africa and the increasing intensity of several conflicts. We need to give Africa’s resilient young generation a chance equal to everyone else and an opportunity to blossom.

While the out-of-school rate is steadily decreasing across Sub-Saharan Africa, the absolute number has reached the alarming global estimate of 98 million. Put simply, about half of the crisis-affected children in Sub-Saharan Africa do not attend school.

In African countries where you see high-levels of armed conflict, combined with the push-on effects on climate change, forced displacement and extreme poverty – including countries such as Ethiopia, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, and Nigeria – we are witnessing a concerning spike in the number of children that are out of school.

Quality is also an issue, as a result of lack of opportunity. “The share of children who cannot read a simple text with comprehension by age 10 was the highest in Sub-Saharan Africa before the COVID-19 pandemic, at 86%. This rate is likely to have worsened after the pandemic, estimated now at 90%,” according to the African Union. “This means that 9 out of 10 children cannot read a simple text with comprehension by age 10.”

To address this challenge, we must take a multilateral approach and responsibility, pool in resources, tap local, national and regional talents, and embrace a new way of working. This includes substantially increasing international funding support for education – especially on the frontlines of Africa’s emergencies and protracted crises.

This year’s G7 provides a remarkable opportunity for global leaders to step up. Education in Africa is taking center stage in the Italian Government’s Mattei Plan. Italy joined Education Cannot Wait’s group of strategic donors with an initial contribution of US$2.1 million at last year’s High-Level Financing Conference. As Italy assumes leadership of the G7 this year, we look forward to renewed support from Italy and all members of the G7 to invest in education for the young people of Africa.

In the United States, we also urge leaders to pass the READ Act Reauthorization. The commitment towards universal education makes it clear that access to quality education strengthens economies and reduces inequality. According to UNICEF, “it contributes to more stable, resilient societies that give all individuals the opportunity to fulfill their potential. Further, girls who receive an education are less likely to marry young and more likely to lead healthy, productive lives. They earn higher incomes, participate in the decisions that most affect them, and build better futures for themselves and their families.”

All governments must take firm steps to increase their own commitments to education, as we’ve seen through ECW’s Multi-Year Resilience Programmes in places like Chad, Nigeria and Uganda. With these innovative investment models, we have the power to crowd-in resources, to tap local organizations and to deliver as one for those left furthest behind.

This goes beyond building classrooms and providing learning materials. To address the challenges of Africa and beyond, we must make available a full assortment of holistic educational supports, including training teachers, improving access to mental health and psychosocial services, and ensuring young children are able to learn through play and older learners are able to continue on to secondary education and beyond.

By 2026, Education Cannot Wait (ECW), as the global fund for education in emergencies and protracted crises within the United Nations, has committed to mobilize a total of US$1.5 billion to reach 20 million crisis-impacted children and adolescents. In Ethiopia, through our innovative investments, we are ensuring children with disabilities like Rewda Abdi are able to access accelerated learning programmes. In Somalia, we are building safe spaces for girls like Bisharo. And in Chad we are providing a lifeline for girls and boys fleeing the conflict in Sudan to continue their studies in quality learning environments, where they can find a sense of safety and hope in a world turned upside down by war and chaos.

For far too long, progress toward sustainable development across much of Africa has been faced with obstacles for generations after generations. The time has come and education cannot wait. Africa deserves to achieve its unlimited potential.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

Excerpt:

ECW Executive Director Yasmine Sherif Statement on the Launch of the Africa Year of Education

By Louis Charbonneau and Widad Franco
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 16 2024 – A cash crunch and hiring freeze at the United Nations threaten to hinder UN human rights investigations in places like Sudan, Ukraine, and Syria.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned UN member countries on January 25 that if those with outstanding dues do not pay up soon, the UN will be broke by August.

In the meantime, the UN would take various cost-cutting measures, including reducing the number of meetings and lowering energy expenses at UN headquarters. The UN’s regular budget for 2024, which doesn’t include peacekeeping and some other UN activities, is US$3.6 billion.

The United States owes the most but continues to make partial payments. According to UN sources, the US owes $1.1 billion to the UN’s regular budget for 2023 and 2024 plus additional arrears. The Biden administration wants to pay, but Congress has not passed a budget that would allow it to do so.

“The Biden administration is committed to working with Congress to ensure that the US fully pays its dues to the UN,” said Chris Lu, US ambassador for UN management and reform.

The US isn’t the only member country that has been slow to pay – 50 others hadn’t paid as of the end of 2023. China, the second biggest contributor, didn’t pay its dues until November, which exacerbated the UN’s liquidity problems.

UN management was forced to impose a hiring freeze last year. All UN departments are affected, including the handful of human rights investigations, most of which have relatively small staffs and budgets.

For example, the UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission for the Sudan, established four months ago has a one-year mandate to investigate widespread atrocities, but still lacks investigators to carry out the mission.

And while the freeze is supposed to allow exceptions for hiring essential staff, UN officials and diplomats told Human Rights Watch there was confusion about how to get those exceptions.

Delegations from China, Russia, Cuba, and others have been trying for years to defund UN human rights work in the General Assembly’s Fifth Committee, which oversees the budget.

Their attempts in December to block funding for investigations into grave human rights abuses in Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Russia, Nicaragua and elsewhere failed.

The UN leadership and member countries should ensure that the UN’s human rights teams have funding and staff to fulfill their mandates. And governments that haven’t paid their assessed contributions should pay up.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/02/13/uns-financial-troubles-jeopardize-critical-human-rights-work

Louis Charbonneau is United Nations Director, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Widad Franco is UN Advocacy Officer, HRW.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);