Civil society 'dormant'

Civil society organisations (CSOs) in Namibia have remained mostly dormant during the past two years, due to diminishing foreign donor funding. According to a new report by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) the financial sustainability of the Namibian civil society worsened significantly last year as foreign donors continued to withdraw funding. The report, authored by IPPR director Graham Hopwood, says the entire political and funding climate within which Namibian civil society functions deteriorated in 2017, the year for which the assessment was done. The CSO Sustainability Index report says that civil society's organisational capacity, service provision and infrastructure also declined as a result of deepening financial problems. However, Hopwood notes that despite these challenges, advocacy by CSOs gained in prominence due to an increase of lobbying for access to information and whistle-blower protection, as well as the emergence of pressure groups such as the Landless People's Movement and the Affirmative Repositioning movement. He says the organisational capacity of CSOs deteriorated last year, mainly due to the closure of capacity-building organisations and constraints caused by persistent funding problems. Several leading capacity-building organisations were either defunct or temporarily inactive in 2017. For example the umbrella body for CSOs, the Namibian Non-Governmental Organisations Forum (Nangof) Trust, closed its office at the end of 2016 when support from the European Development Fund ended. Although several components of the Nangof Trust continued to operate, it was basically dormant in 2017, says Hopwood. The Civil Society Foundation of Namibia, set up in 2013 to offer training and funding to grassroots organisations, shut down at the same time because its funding from the EU ended. Furthermore the Namibia Institute for Democracy, which usually offers training to CSOs, also entered a period of dormancy in 2017 because of funding shortfalls. “Compounding this difficulty was the tendency of donors and international CSOs to overlook the needs of Namibian CSOs for capacity-building support.” According to Hopwood some international organisations competed for funding against domestic organisations and organised activities in areas in which established Namibian CSOs already operated, effectively undermining their work. He says since these international organisations receive technical support and funding for overhead costs from their head offices, they are better resourced than local CSOs and therefore more credible to donors. “As a result, Namibian CSOs must increasingly rely on funding for short-term projects, which usually does not include allowances for operating expenses such as rent and utilities. The net result for Namibian CSOs is unreliable incomes, staffing uncertainties, and management and oversight problems.” Hopwood says because of the general lack of funding, Namibian CSOs increasingly operated in an ad hoc manner and did not undertake longer-term strategic planning in 2017. According to him many organisations focused on dealing with the next crisis or finding the next pay cheque rather than planning ahead. He says many CSOs found it difficult to secure and retain experienced staff in 2017. In the face of uncertain funding, even health-sector organisations, which were once regarded as the most securely funded CSOs, began to complain that their capacity to employ workers on full-time, long-term contracts was reduced. “CSOs getting by with part-time or temporary staff struggled to meet the demands of donors for complex risk assessments, log frames, plans, and other documents needed for their applications and reports on larger grants.” Hopwood says although there is no clear data on the overall amounts and purposes of donor aid for the Namibian CSO sector, work in the areas of human rights, democracy, and governance seemed to be hardest hit by funding shortfalls. “Namibian CSOs have few alternatives to donor aid, and there is a general sense of pessimism about future funding prospects.” On the other hand, the public image of CSOs did not change much in 2017. The Namibia Institute for Democracy (NID) reported in 2015 that 568 CSOs existed in Namibia. Of these only about 10% were strong, established organisations and half of these worked in the area of healthcare and HIV/Aids, while 10% were active in economic and social justice, democracy, governance and human rights. Since 2015 there has been no formal survey of civil society to establish the overall number of CSOs or identify the sectors in which they work. According to Hopwood the IPPR identified 60 active CSOs in the Windhoek area that are able to contribute to consultations involving the African Peer Review Mechanism. The largest sectors were democracy and human rights, labour (including trade unions), healthcare and HIV/Aids. “There appears to be few active CSOs outside the capital, although no survey has been undertaken to confirm this.” Hopwood also points out that the government seems to take a haphazard approach to consulting civil society on laws and policies. Although CSOs were sometimes asked to comment on key issues, such as the Black Economic Empowerment Policy last year, at other times consultation was non-existent or, at best, ad hoc. “CSOs continued to have trouble accessing government representatives, mainly because many politicians and top officials do not understand the concept of civil society advocacy.” ELLANIE SMIT

Civil society 'dormant'

Comments

Namibian Sun 2025-06-24

Please login to leave a comment

Civil society 'dormant'

Comments

Namibian Sun 2025-06-24

Please login to leave a comment

Login