ISTR Sixth International Conference Toronto, Canada / July 11-14, 2004 Contesting Citizenship and Civil Society in a Divided World

	Conference Homepage
	Abstracts

Donor-NGO relationship in northern Nigeria
by
Sulaiman Khalid
Department of Sociology, Usman Danfodiyo University, Sokoto Nigeria

“I thought USAID is about international development and working with communities to get them to change, using their processes from their realities. But they come with their own agenda, strategies and work plans from outside… There is incongruity between USAID goals and strategies and ours” (Participant at a stakeholders’ meeting in Kano-Nigeria, March, 2003) This problem was identified by NGOs in Northern Nigeria who have related to international development organizations as implementing partners. Most NGOs in Northern Nigeria have been able to exist over the years due to the support given to them by donors. The contribution of international donors in enabling the growth of local organizations receiving financial and technical support where these organizations implement the donor-assisted programmes has been widely acknowledged. The mushrooming of NGOs in many parts of Nigeria is attributed to the increased donor support particularly since 1999 when the nation return to democratic government. However, the support by donors has been a double-edged sword in so far as organizational growth and impact of programme activities can be matched. While donor support has enabled the building up of a critical mass of civil society actors, the over-reliance on external funding has forced organizations to refocus their activities to address the programmatic interests of the funding agencies. One of the key results is that many local NGOs, and to a smaller extent, community-based organizations, in Northern Nigeria cannot claim independence on choice of activities and focus. Thus, by imposing an agenda and objectives, “the donors can distort the links between an NGO’s value base, organization and activities, and thus ultimately weaken the NGO even at the same time as increasing its financial, technical and human resources in the short term” (Bebbington and Mitlie, 1996:16). This also suggest that ‘partnerships’ that are mediated by money are characterized by tension and inequality, and inequality never built capacity.(Edde, 1997) because “no matter how understanding the donor may be, the fact that the Northern NGO is the one with money means that the Southern NGO must be the one with the begging bowl”. (Manji,1997) This paper is based on stakeholders’ meetings held with 42 civil society organizations, comprising Non-Governmental Organisations, Community-based Organisation, faith-based organizations, trade, unions and media advocacy groups. Participatory methodologies and tools were used in facilitation to enhance participation, determine the trends and build consensus on capacity issues. The research process was purely qualitative. Eliciting a variety of views from as diverse a group of respondents as possible was seen as an acceptable way to gain information about NGOs on their relationship with donor-organisations. Three sessions were held in 3 Northern Nigeria’s cities of Kano, Bauchi and Jos between March and April, 2003. All the NGOs, at the stakeholders meetings indicated that a top-down planning approach is imposed on them. The content of the programs to be implemented, their location for implementation and methodologies for carrying them out seem to be decided by the donor with hardly any input by the implementing partner (NGO) or any room for flexibility. These issues were captured succinctly by some of the participants: “They decide what they want to do from Washington and paste it on you. You are in a straight jacket. They need to look at the local environment, which they don’t” (NGO leader in Jos). “They give you money to do what they want you to do and not what you want to do” (CEDPA guarantee in Bauchi). The participants have also noted that many international development agencies have incorporated institutional and capacity-building within the assistance portfolio. However, the perceived non-flexibility on the part of donor agencies to respond positively to capacity building needs of the local NGOs has, to significant extent, resulted in the institutional weakness in most of the NGOs in the study area. Most NGOs indicated that they lack knowledge and understanding of donor policies and procedures, and mechanisms for influencing the funding policies of donors to address critical issues not already in their remit. “We need seed money to develop our NGOs, not seed stocks of commodities” (NGO leader in Kano, Nigeria).

Date received: September 28, 2003

Copyright © 2003 by the author(s). The author(s) of this document and the organizers of the conference have granted their consent to include this abstract in Atlas Conferences Inc. Document # camk-44.