Among additional topics, over the past months at GMI we have been engaging different international aid actors, from bilateral donors to national/local ones, on four fitness questions: Are you fit-for-context? Are you fit-for-partnering? Are you fit-for-the future? Are you fit-for-purpose?
Are you fit-for-context? Having studied particularly the international relief sector in action in widely different contexts, ranging from Colombia to Myanmar, it is remarkable how similar its modus operandi is everywhere. This shows that its behaviours are primarily shaped around the money flows and the policies, procedures, standards etc. that accompany it, rather than by the particularities of the contexts on the ground. ‘Context’ here means not just needs and operating conditions, but the deeper socio-political dynamics and its history. Contexts are also not just ‘national’ – in most countries there are important differences between sub-national contexts. Put simply: we impose an international system on different contexts, rather than adapting to those contexts. National and local actors then must adjust to the international system, rather than the other way around. This also reflects the assumption that there are technical-managerial solutions for complex social and political problems. Still, the international system works relatively well -it can deliver certain goods and services- if we stay with a short-term and rather superficial perspective. But if we take a deeper and longer-term perspective, it is unable to contribute to more meaningful change and deeper impact. That would require much more substantive participation and (co-) leadership from local and national stakeholders, and the patience to allow the time needed for more important ‘results’ to emerge. Being fit-for-context also requires more than technical-logistical-managerial skills such as: a serious effort to really learn about these contexts as lived and portrayed by local and national actors; a readiness to inquire into what has been tried before and why it did not yield more meaningful results; an ability to be a ‘critical friend’ to local and national actors who are -ultimately- the only ones who can bring about and sustain more meaningful change in their own society.
Are you fit-for-partnering? Although it is explicitly recognised that approaching the Sustainable Development Goals requires partnerships and hence partnering skills, the international aid system is set up for fragmentation and competition. Because once again the starting point is the money rather than the change we want to see; it makes agencies compete for money rather than collaborate for a common purpose. In the aid sector, the word ‘partner’ has been degraded to refer to any type of ‘collaboration’ where there is some money transfer, even one that instrumentalises the weaker actor and may exploit him as cheap labour. Some ‘partnerships’, particularly between international aid agencies, are also created primarily to be more competitive in chasing the money, rather than for a meaningful purpose.
Genuine partnership does not mean blind trust and avoidance of any difficult conversations, but a collaboration grounded in a basic attitude of mutual respect, and sharing of decisions, risks and benefits. Being fit-for-partnering requires, from all those interacting with other agencies and stakeholders, strong relational skills (including self-awareness and emotional intelligence), because formal agreements rarely survive bad interpersonal dynamics. But individual competencies are not enough: the whole organisation needs to be fit-for-partnering. That requires a self-image of the organisation not as the center of its own universe but as part of a larger eco-system, and that sees the value of ‘power with’ rather than ‘power over’. It implies an organisational ability to play different roles in various collaborative arrangements and a readiness to see this allocation of roles evolve. It also requires critical attention to how power is used internally. Because how power is understood and handled internally will influence how it is dealt with in collaborative arrangements. Fit-for-partnering means sharing credit, not promoting only your own visibility and brand. Letting others take credit, also for some of your contributions, can sometimes be a critical tactic to get an initiative more broadly accepted, ‘owned’, and implemented – key conditions for real change.
Are you fit-for-the-future? The geopolitics of the world are changing dramatically, with economic, political, and military crises proliferating. The international aid system, mostly funded by Western donors and channeled via expensive and competing international aid agencies, cannot provide a social safety net everywhere, even less so if keeps so many national and local actors on the sideline. The mainstream aid agencies do not address the more structural political and economic causes of growing poverty, food insecurity, forced displacement and marginalisation; their focus on delivering ‘projects’ misses the point that significant changes come from broad social movements that mobilise people and campaign for change. They seem to have given up explaining to the wider public that access to clean water, child immunisation or at least two meals a day cannot be resolved solely by a donation of a few dollars a month.
The political pressure to act on global warming has not come from the mainstream aid agencies – although they are happy now, belatedly, to look for the new money opportunities this agenda can provide. Very few of them are engaged on public expenditure choices by national governments, taxation justice, labour rights and fair wages or international trade agreement negotiations. It are not the mainstream aid agencies that put the finger on ‘blood diamonds’, inquire into the banking secrecies that enable large scale corruption and tax evasions, speak out about the forced return of refugees also by Western countries claiming the moral high ground, or call for the protection of press freedom and journalists. Nor are they a leading voice for a more circular economy.
Is it not high time for international aid-agencies to deeply re-examine their role in the emerging future – with the courage to embrace radical alternatives to doing more of the same? If the mission remains relevant, does it have to be implemented in the same way as the past 20 years? If the mission needs to change, because the value the agency adds today is less than what it used to be – will it dare to repurpose and reinvent itself?
Are you fit-for-purpose? This fourth fitness question is deliberately put last. Putting it first would make it possible to avoid the critical reflections of the first three fitness questions. It would make it easy to simply say: we need to get even better at what we have been doing and how we have been doing it for the past 15-20 years. And for that we need more money. No – in a drastically changing world, with more global impacts of national or regional political processes, protracted and recurrent crises that must be addressed more structurally, and more actors around the world whose commitment and capabilities are needed to build social movements with critical mass, international aid agencies need to have the courage to radically rethink their purpose, roles and modus operandi. It may mean losing weight, downsizing staff numbers and annual budget. Unthinkable? Only if we are hooked on the growth obsession which is the cause of so many planetary stresses today. And if we fail to observe that the organisations and companies doing the most relevant work on what the world needs today, are often smaller but smarter, and that size can come from partnerships. According to the African proverb: If you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together.
With thanks to the Interagency Research and Analysis Network (IARAN) and The Partnering Initiative, for their valuable and valued contributions.
Intrigued, interested? Contact us at GMI kvanbrabant@gmentor.org; spatel@gmentor.org