In any “post-aid” scenario, resilient civil society support ecosystems are essential

Drawing on a recent landscape study of five countries, Paul Knipe raises the case for why resilient civil society support ecosystems are an essential foundation of any “post-aid“ future, and how resilience can be increased.  

The sudden, destructive dismantling of USAID and the reduction in official development assistance around the world has fuelled uncertainty and prompted discussion about what a “post-aid” future could or should look like. There are growing calls for an appropriate response to a “post-aid” scenario, in which the aid system has been radically overhauled. To many, this means a move away from current approaches that are seen to be ineffective and rooted in colonial legacy.

For INTRAC, resilient civil society support ecosystems must be an essential part of any post-aid scenario. Strong, dynamic, support ecosystems enable civil society organisations (CSOs), movements, and networks to increase their impact and play a central role in societal advancement.  

A core aspect of an ecosystem is its infrastructure. At INTRAC we are passionate about organisational development (OD). The intermediary organisations, re-grantors, networks, consultants who work with CSOs on their OD challenges are critical parts of this infrastructure. Healthy ecosystems have a balance between supply and demand for OD services, with consistent and equal access to quality support.  They also have active, strong local consultancy markets.  

While quality is difficult to define, INTRAC believes that what we call ethical and values-driven consultancy can lead to quality, impactful, and appropriate consultancy. This values contextual knowledge and experience equally with technical skills, encourages trusting relationships that respond to unique circumstances and needs, and aims to build inclusivity and challenge inequality. 

INTRAC recently carried out over 100 interviews as part of an analysis of civil society support ecosystems in Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, China, and Japan. Our findings can be summarised into three broad areas that can increase resilience:  

1) Funding models need an urgent rethink, shifting from predominantly short-term, project-based approaches, to longer term, flexible support.  

Nontraditional funders are well placed to support and can provide flexible, alternative models to aid, through ethical private sector financing, responsible investing, venture, trust- and community-based philanthropy. Bilateral donors with reduced budgets must embrace more agile technologies to cut bureaucracy and respond to needs determined by actors themselves. 

2) Infrastructure actors can overcome dynamics of shrinking civic space and other external challenges, providing appropriate professional and OD support that responds to unique contextual factors.  

Leadership, strategic planning, advocacy, and know-how to navigate political and regulatory environments are common needs of CSOs, which can be met by local infrastructure actors, with appropriate enabling environments (such as flexible funding).  

Such support should be re-orientated to centre and better account for local knowledge and approaches, which have been undervalued through traditional funding models. Support ecosystems rooted in local culture, practice and knowledge, amplified through local and global connections, can increase impact and sustainability. Infrastructure organisations can also utilise and scale up innovative local practice (for example, A Better Community in Beijing).   

3) There are disparities in access to support, with fragmented service offerings and an urban-rural divide.  

Infrastructure actors are critical players in shaping and enabling consistent, quality support, as technical providers and conduits, communicators and coordinators, overcoming challenges of rural-urban divide and fragmented access (for example, Comuá Network in Brazil).  

While beneficial to CSOs, networks and movements, they can also have a significant role in strengthening local consultancy markets and the quality of OD provision. Through learning, connection and appropriate professional development opportunities, they can address isolation, and increase collaboration and learning within and across contexts.  

As actors in the civil society support ecosystem, what can we do now? Individually we may be small players but collectively we have an advantage. We are part of this intricate system and can bring together, utilize and share perspectives, experiences and knowledge – both technical and contextual. We can challenge failing aspects of the aid system, and at the same time centre and support alternative, impactful approaches drawing on practical experiences of what works.   

And for funders? Responsible investment and equitable partnerships within this space are crucial. These approaches are essential, both to enable growth and resilience and to ensure civil society actors themselves are the driving force for solutions that respond to needs and contexts, in any post-aid scenario.