What does it mean to truly decolonize within the International Solidarity (formerly Development Cooperation) sector? That one question was central to it research report that S&L recently wrote for the NGO Federation on the theme of “decentralization”, and in the conversation that David De Beukelaer had with about that Jeroen Van Hove .
About decentralization, power and the discomfort of change
Decentralizing operations in the context of decolonization requires more than introspection or symbolic steps. It starts with the realization that power must be shared — and therefore also with the ability of NGOs to let go of structures, control and taken for granted. Without a shared vision of the future and a clear answer to the why question, decentralization processes remain unfocused and have little impact.
For the laymen among us, first give me the basics: what is this report actually about?
The former development cooperation actually stems from the colonial story. When certain countries became independent, Belgium, among others, brought money, charity and knowledge. But a trend of decolonization has been going on in that sector for years. For example, people no longer talk about the North-South axis or about development cooperation, and NGOs increasingly want to place responsibility with their partners in the countries themselves.
So the will is there to put an end to those colonial relationships, but... That may not be that easy in practice?
It certainly does not happen automatically, and our research once again showed that ready-made answers or formulas will not provide any relief. It will be a search for every organization - although they can learn from each other - into how they can best implement that ambition and what exactly the consequences of decentralization will be.
Decentralization?
Yes, that was the subject of our research report. Decentralization is the answer to the decolonization question. To decolonize the sector, we must decentralize. If you want to speak of equal partnerships between your local employees or partner countries and the head office, not all responsibilities, people and resources can remain in Belgium. So you have to decentralize. The DGD (Directorate General for Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid) asked us to investigate how decentralization is proceeding at five Belgian NGOs active in Congo: substantive, strategic and financial.
“It was important for us to gather all the different perspectives: those from the head office, from the local partners and from the staff.”
That sounds like a fascinating but comprehensive question. How did you set up such a broad study?
Indeed it is. That is why we have delivered a solid report with the necessary definitions, references and attention to the question: 'What is decentralization and how does it work in this specific context?'. There have been many interviews, here and in Congo. We didn't just want to lead the process with two white men, it was important to recognize our limitations and impact. Partly for this reason we collaborated with a local anthropologist. We delved deep into the figures, organized workshops and exercises and brought together a lot of knowledge. It was important for us to gather all the different perspectives: those from the head office, from the local partners and from the staff. The differences and similarities between their observations are telling.
And can you share some of the lessons that came out of all that toil?
Yes, but I really want to add the necessary nuance, because it was different for every organization. There is none passepartout . For example, the results of the interviews were not really new for the local employees — it is their lived reality — but we thought the common denominator was important to underline: yes, they want decentralization, more responsibility and independence. But without the mistakes that were made during the decolonization of their country. And that's a clever parallel they draw. Just letting go of your partners, without a plan or strategy, is not a sustainable idea.
That doesn't sound very constructive indeed. How do they best approach that transition?
An organization must know where it wants to be in ten years, in order to be able to make well-founded decisions within two or five years. Otherwise you're sailing blind. Do you want to move towards a situation of financial independence and decentralized power? Then you have to look critically at our Belgian audit culture, the control mechanisms that keep people dependent, and how you can adapt administrative requirements.
“Do you want to move towards a situation of financial independence and decentralized power? Then you have to look critically at our Belgian audit culture.”
Aren't you, as a Belgian NGO, also planning your own end?
No, that's too dramatic. As a head office in Belgium, you must dare to make yourself redundant in certain domains within that period. That's what it ultimately comes down to. You don't want to throw around politically correct words such as 'decentralization', while in reality you continue to manage all financial flows yourself and maintain a double workforce to read every report again. Decentralization is about trust, and the need to decolonize in our minds as well. This is not about an intellectual judgment - as if the head office has the idea that the necessary level is not present in the partner countries - but about the conviction that our way of reporting and controlling is the only correct one for properly managing projects and budgets.
How far are those five NGOs from the decentralization you describe here?
DGD, the government, finances and determines the rules of the game. They always support partners through a Belgian entity that then carries out projects locally. This often places the partners in an executive role. The focus of decisions and strategy is still too often in Brussels, not in Congo. We often heard: “La main qui donne, est la main qui dirige”, it is of course also about money, power and the awareness surrounding this. But there are major differences between the organizations, and these become even greater if you look beyond our research. What Oxfam has done in recent years — setting up local, legally independent Oxfams that work internationally — is a truly impressive step. Yet their model, no matter how good, cannot easily be copied by other organizations due to their size or the nature of their offering.
What do you think these organizations should do now?
To give up responsibility, you have to build trust and be self-critical. That process is not linear, and realizing that is worth a lot. In addition, you have to think about how you prepare people locally for these new responsibilities, for example through training or exchange, without forgetting that you cannot force them to stay forever. So: training and retention. One of the organizations in the report did this very well, by bringing partners together in regional meetings where they could learn from each other and exchange experiences. As a Belgian organization, you must choose which role you want to take on in the future, when the classic hierarchical model no longer works. Will you become a bridge builder? Facilitator? Translator? Ecosystem builder ? In a case about Saint John in Malawi, we describe how that organization has become up to 60% financially independent of its Irish sister organization, the latter really plays the role of bridge builder, without being hierarchically above it.
Which role seems most meaningful to you?
That depends on many factors, but I strongly believe in the need to bring people together and facilitate exchange. There is certainly a role for traditional NGOs there. The biggest question mark remains the finances. DGD works with taxpayers' money and therefore expects guarantees from Belgian NGOs that every cent is well spent. How do you relinquish that control? How do you work together as equals when one party holds the portfolio? Our research also showed that for many local partners the distinction between DGD and the NGO was not always clear when it came to financial decisions. Of course, that also affects your relationship.
Yes, you have to. And who can actually determine the best use of every cent?
Now the financing mainly goes to projects. The strengthening of the organization itself takes place while doing . But what if your project ends? In the coming years, projects must also be financed that focus exclusively on making organizations more robust, so that they can work towards decentralization. If you really want an organization to become stronger, it requires a budget and guidance in the transition itself. So as a project in itself, not gradually. The sector needs investments in civil society ( civil society ), otherwise you keep organizations small and dependent on the project cycle. The 5-year DGD programs that will be written in the coming year are certainly an opportunity to create more room for consultation and exchange with partners.
That doesn't seem like an easy point to make to me, precisely because of the power relationship. Not for you, but certainly not for the local partners.
We collaborated with Brigit, an anthropologist from Congo. By co-facilitating the workshops with her, we were able to create a safe situation in which everyone could speak freely and express their opinions unfiltered. Our methods worked well: working with different groups, having separate conversations, using statements and introducing color codes. Partly because we were present as an independent party, we received honest input. And I am truly happy that we succeeded.
Would you like to add something concluding as a conclusion?
For me the report is open-ended. The question was rightly broad, our answer partly applied and practical but also generally strategic. That is not an easy gap to bridge. Still, a few things have come to the surface for me. That decentralization is a strong strategic issue, which therefore also requires a thorough strategy. And that starts with the question: where do you want to go, who are you, and what role fits that? You then map out the consequences of this: what this means for the finances, the decision structure, the personnel policy and the choices of projects to support. It's close to change management , and it is crucial for every organization not to start from the belief that you already know everything, but to build a shared vision of the future together.
A combination of modesty and ambition?
That sounds like a successful cocktail, indeed.
