Information You Can Use: A Bi-monthly Service for the UN and Civil Society
Volume 1, Issue 5, October-November 2004

Partnerships in Development

11 November 2004
Source: Daily Times (Pakistan)
By: Syed Mohammed Ali

A higher level of trust exists in partnerships between organisations with similar capacity levels. Trust in NGO partnerships is seen to diminish considerably where there is a capacity-mismatch. Unfortunately a majority of local NGOs in developing countries are smaller and under-resourced in comparison with their international counterparts. There is, therefore, much room for mistrust.

Partnerships are supposed to be based on mutually beneficial relationships involving an equitable distribution of authority, responsibility and prestige. While partnerships are easily formed in the development sector, there is often contention due to inherent power imbalances. In view of the exponential growth of partnerships between NGOs in developing and developed countries, the NGO-NGO relationship deserves a close look.

While there is a wide spectrum of partnerships formed between NGOs, a majority of international NGOs, headquartered in developed countries, remain hesitant in sharing decision-making powers with their local partners in developing countries. This reluctance results in lopsided partnerships. Consequently international NGOs get to retain the power to decide key policy issues, formulate strategies, decide how to best utilise the resources and even design monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to ascertain impact. All NGOs in developing countries can do in such situations is put into effect the pre-ordained policies.

It is no surprise then that a major share of the local partners' time is devoted to auditing and reporting issues, since communicating with and convincing their international partners seems more important than trying to deal with on-ground progress. If the decision-making role is reserved for their partners sitting abroad, the local NGOs can at best become managers of imposed development initiatives. This description may seem a bit contrived but is representative of reality of development practice. While the international NGOs may choose to be polite or subtle and refer to local NGOs as their partners, it is common for the local partners to blatantly refer to their international 'counterparts' as donors.

Training and Research Centre, a London-based International NGO, however, sounds more optimistic in its findings based on a four-year research on the nature of the relationships between NGOs. It concedes that many partnerships between NGOs are primarily funding based and offer limited scope for dialogue, but points to an increasing trend of non-funding relationships based on interactive policy dialogue, advocacy and networking for issues like debt reduction. The research also highlights the significance of trust between NGOs. A higher level of trust, it says, exists in partnerships between organisations with similar capacity levels. Trust in NGO partnerships is seen to diminish considerably where there is a capacity-mismatch. Unfortunately a majority of local NGOs in developing countries are smaller and under-resourced in comparison with their international counterparts. There is, therefore, much room for mistrust. This, in turn, impedes development efforts on ground.

Although funding remains a key motive for partnership, there is growing scope in developing countries for local resource mobilisation. The need for tapping indigenous philanthropy has been realised in Pakistan. Bangladesh, too, is waking up to the need to curb international donors ' influence in its civil society. Financial independence would no doubt provide more leverage to local NGOs in negotiating terms and conditions of partnership with international counterparts.

Creating a healthy equilibrium based on principles of equality, respect and mutuality between local and international NGOs is not impossible. However, these notions need to be realised in view of ground realities. The fact of the matter is that, more often than not, international NGOs do have greater resources, technical expertise and access to funds. Conversely, local NGOs have a better knowledge of the context, cultural and social sensitivity and thus greater legitimacy within communities in which development initiatives are introduced.

Given that international and local NGOs have different strengths and weaknesses, the question is how to tap the strengths of each without one of the partners stifling the other. Explicit and negotiated purposes-of-partnership agreements with clearly defined expectations, rights and responsibilities are vital to address the challenge of creating a more equal relationship between partnering NGOs. It is reasonable perhaps to expect a practical, rather than a symmetrical, balance of power between local and international NGOs. The local NGOs should demand more accountability and more transparency from international NGOs, about how decisions are reached and agendas set. Balanced partnerships also require long-term engagement processes to achieve fruition, since trust cannot be built overnight.

The process of creating sustainable partnerships between NGOs is often hindered by the prevalent practice of key individuals in local NGOs forging direct contacts with international NGOs, rather than striving for a relationship that is more broadly organisational and involves rapport with a larger number of members of their staff.

Interestingly, international NGOs with a longer-term perspective on development and greater independence from their governments due to limited reliance on public funding generally adopt a more confrontational advocacy and campaigning positions. The International Crisis Group is a case in point. It recently undertook such a scathing criticism of the devolution process initiated by the current regime in Pakistan that the National Reconstruction Bureau chairman threatened to take legal action against it. On the other hand, international NGOs taking a short-term approach to development based on their own governments' priorities and often working in collaboration with not only local NGOs but also local governments have a more pragmatic approach. Instances of such collaboration are too numerous and obvious to require naming organisations.

There is a movement towards greater coordination between international development NGOs working in broader coalitions. But conflicts like the war on Iraq and post-reconstruction troubles in Afghanistan are simultaneously exacerbating pre-existing differences by intensifying debates concerning the politics of development.

Despite the ruptures and hurdles, common ground is easily found for harmonising NGO efforts. After all, it is essential for development efforts to be people-oriented. Emphasising principles of participatory development is therefore necessary for both local and international NGOs. While unequal power dynamics make partnering for development a difficult proposition, local NGOs can negotiate greater leverage against dominating international counterparts, even if they hold the purse strings, since international NGOs need local partners just as much.

BACK