Ten concrete ways INGOs can decolonize their aid work

International aid is still a highly colonial sector. 

According to a new report edited by Peace Direct — in partnership with Adeso, Alliance for Peacebuilding, and Women of Color Advancing Peace, Security, and Conflict Transformation — unequal power dynamics remain strong in the international aid system. Despite calls to address inequities within the sector, funding for many local organizations is largely held by a small number of donors and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs). 

“Decolonising development, humanitarian aid and peacebuilding — the movement to address and dismantle racist and discriminatory structures and norms that are hidden in plain sight in the aid system — is emerging as an urgent, vital, and long overdue discussion which adds greater weight to the existing calls to transform the system,” the report’s authors write in its executive summary. “If policymakers, donors, practitioners, academics and activists do not begin to address structural racism and what it means to decolonise aid, the system may never be able to transform itself in ways that truly shift power and resources to local actors.”

In November 2020, Peace Direct and its partners held a three-day online consultation with more than 150 people from the international development, humanitarian aid, and peacebuilding sectors to discuss how to decolonize the aid system. Many of their recommendations aren’t new, the authors say, but “our hope is that in bringing them to the fore now, at a time when the system is in such flux, it will provide an opportunity for those in the system to seize this moment to shift power in ways that create more equitable partnerships, leading to better humanitarian, development and peacebuilding outcomes for all.”

The authors made a number of recommendations for the sector, including:

Acknowledge the elephant in the room — structural racism. 

Regardless of their intentions, the report says INGOs and their donors participate in a global aid system with structural racism built into its very foundations. This doesn’t necessarily mean international assistance is evil or wrong, or that all aid workers are racist. However, the sector does need to tackle the problem — and one important way for organizations to start is by examining their own conduct. 

“An important first step would be to put out a public statement on the organisation’s website and in its communications materials acknowledging its power and position within the aid system, the biases that may have informed the organisation’s past actions, and the systemic power dynamics that privilege certain people over others,” the report recommends. 

Talk about power dynamics openly and honestly. 

Local communities often won’t raise concerns about power imbalances in conversations with INGOs or donors, the report says. That means INGOs need to make space for the conversation. “Donors, policymakers, and INGOs need to spend as much time listening to the concerns of local groups and communities about the imbalances of power in the system as they do about their material, economic and skills needs,” the report reads. 

One important step is for donors and INGOs to give grantees a chance to anonymously critique their organization’s operations, past interactions, and perceptions. This can then act as a foundation for more detailed feedback and potentially change an organization’s practices for the better. 

Expect (and encourage) dissent. 

Donors and INGOs need to create spaces for local organizations, communities, and grantees — especially marginalized ones — to drive change. Eventually, some groups may challenge an organization’s power. This won’t be comfortable for INGOs or donors. “In fact, if a conversation about power is not uncomfortable, it is unlikely that open or honest opinions are being shared, or that the necessary enabling environment has been created,” the report says. 

Instead, INGOs and donors should open up safe spaces for marginalized groups such as women, youth, and disabled people, fully prepared for the possibility that they may challenge organizational power. “Donors and INGOs should also be aware that some groups will claim space for change, rather than waiting to be invited into a newly created space, and must be open to relinquishing control of these processes,” the report says. 

Rethink the jargon you use. 

Colonial frameworks are built into the very terms used by INGOs and funders, even seemingly benign ones. Take ‘capacity-building’: Who says a local community can’t build its own capacity? Or ‘beneficiaries’: Does that term present local communities as equal partners, or subservient to an INGO’s paternalism? “Reassessing existing language, as well as adopting new language and terminologies, can help in shifting from frameworks rooted in colonial histories to new, inclusive and creative approaches,” the report says. 

The report suggests local communities be allowed to lead a change in terminology, “with organizations deterring to them where possible and re-evaluating where not.” 

Be generous with your trust and money. 

Navigating funder requirements can be a major source of frustration for local organizations. The report suggests funders “fund courageously” by offering more inclusive approaches to grantmaking and also accept uncertainty, rather than minimizing risk. “When funders accept the possibility of programme failure, it opens the door to innovative and flexible funding approaches, such as funders taking on the brunt of the bureaucratic work or adopting context-specific measures of success,” the report says. 

It recommends funders consider pooling funds to mitigate risk, directly fund organizations, set targets for unrestricted funding for local organizations, adapt due diligence requirements, and modify eligibility criteria “that give preferential treatment to Western NGOs.” 

Put your recruitment practices under the microscope.

“Organizations must end the practice of first seeking expatriate staff for any position based overseas,” the report says. “Instead, it should be assumed that all positions can be filled by local staff.” 

Many INGOs claim they already do so in their overseas offices and cite a commitment to localization. That isn’t enough, according to the report. INGOs based in the Global North should also seek to recruit a more diverse staff for their ‘home’ offices. 

Appreciate Indigenous and local knowledge. 

The report recommends funders and organizations start investing in local researchers rather than simply paying for the travel costs of Western researchers to parachute in and offer their expertise. Research should be rooted in local indigenous values and methods. “When designing a programme, INGOs should work with local leaders to examine existing models, logframes and theories of change, and adopt new ones rooted in local approaches,” the report says. 

It also recommends that INGOs evaluate their programs through culturally-specific frameworks, again, established by local practitioners. Guidance should include youth experts, feminist experts, women experts, and religious experts — and the results of any program should be shared with the local community. 

Stop ‘White gaze’ fundraising ads. 

For decades, INGO advertisements have portrayed communities in need as hopelessly vulnerable, exploited, and disempowered as a way to garner sympathy from Western donors. The report refers to these narratives as ‘White gaze’ fundraising and says in no uncertain terms that INGOs need to stop running them.  

“Moreover, they should conduct an audit of their external and internal communications to provide a benchmark for future improvements, and consider alternative and collaborative approaches to documenting efforts in the Global South,” the report continues. 

Set up clear milestones for your transfer of power. 

Vowing to relinquish power as an INGO is one thing, but carrying it out effectively is another entirely. The report suggests INGOs adopt specific, clear milestones for the transfer of power to local organizations, especially those that are not familiar with the international system. This transition mindset should measure success according to how an INGO is reducing — rather than expanding —  its footprint. 

“Direct implementation should be phased out in favour of a shift of resources to local organisations, and reserved only for exceptional situations at the request of local organisations,” the report says. 

Avoid the localization defence. 

Too often, INGOs defend their use of an organizational office in-country by saying it reflects a commitment to localization — sometimes by defining a country office as ‘local’ based on the number of locally-employed staff who work there. The report says INGO leaders shouldn’t shy away from that.“If an INGO has a country office, it should accept this identity as an INGO and explain through external communications that it is aware of the power it has and the responsibility it bears to relinquish power,” the report says.  

Tell us this made you smarter | Contact us | Report error