sustainability

• Inability to get a tax clearance certificate needed to secure funding;
• A dispute of one kind or another;
• Suspicion of fraud or theft;
• An unexpected but significant financial obligation to report or pay; and
• Threat of closure due to lack of funds.

• Financial recordkeeping is not up to date -  it is not uncommon for us to find that either no transaction capturing is being done at all or that capturing is months behind.  The records of your organisation should be captured into an accounting package (such as Pastel or Quickbooks) and reconciled to bank statements to the end of the previous month by the middle of the next month.  You do not even need to wait for the auditors to finalise the previous year’s records and reports to start capturing and checking the next financial years’ records;
• Financial reports are not presented to, or not considered regularly by, the management (monthly) or the board (quarterly);
• Financial reports are inaccurate or incomplete or do not agree to the underlying accounting records. Often, such reports are presented on Microsoft Excel spreadsheets with no reconciliation to actual balances in the bank accounts, in such cases, the information cannot be relied upon for good decision-making.
• The situation revealed by the financial reports is not fully understood or is simply ignored, appropriate questions are not asked and actions are not taken even when complete and accurate financial reports are presented and considered;
• Monthly cash flow forecasts are not prepared and scrutinised, starting with the balance in the bank today and realistically forecasting the expected cash inflows and outflows month by month showing the resulting closing balance of funds per month for the year ahead; and
• There is a lack of independent regular checking of the work of the finance person, who is often trusted to carry out all the necessary financial and legal obligations of the organisation unsupervised, including meeting the South African Revenue Services (SARS) requirements. This leaves the organisation vulnerable to the effects of normal human frailties, such as forgetfulness, omissions, errors or even fraud. Financial records and systems need to be regularly independently checked – not just by the auditor once a year so that the finance person can be held accountable.

• Ongoing deficits - expenditure is consistently higher than income (or put another way the regular income is not enough to pay for regular expenditure) in general or for particular projects;
• Liquidity problems – cash in the bank today is not enough to pay the outstanding debt already owed today – so putting off paying what is due today until some money comes into the bank.
• Delaying payment of salaries to staff or payments to SARS for employees tax and UIF.
• Letters of demand for payment from suppliers, contractors etc.;
• Using earmarked grants and donations when received into the bank account to immediately pay outstanding debts;
• Taking loans – either personally or from others;
• Depleting reserves or savings – needing to draw down on savings and to cash in or sell investments or other assets to meet ongoing expenditure commitments;
• Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul – using money received for one purpose to pay for expenditure for another purpose often with the intention to repay when ‘other money’ is received. However, the “other money” gets less and less and finally dries up completely leaving you unable to replace the borrowed money and unable to report honestly on the spending; and
• Falsifying reports to funders to cover up the mess and get funds released.

At present, South Africa (SA) has an extensive and lively non-governmental sector which boasts roughly 100 000 registered nonprofit organisations (NPOs) and an estimated 50 000 unregistered ones.⁽²⁾ SA’s large nonprofit sector is the product of a diverse society including a variety of ethnic groups and a history that has informed the way in which South African society operates as a whole, as well as the way in which the nonprofit sector conducts its operations.

The prevalence of NPOs in SA can be explained by the postulation that, “Nonprofit provision of collective goods will be large in societies with high levels of inequality in individuals’ effective demand for collective goods or high degrees of religious or ethnic heterogeneity.”⁽³⁾ SA is, indeed, very ethnically diverse, and the inequality in the effectiveness of individuals’ demand for goods is a common feature of present South African society, brought about, in part, by years of racial segregation and oppression. This was exemplified by a bifurcated welfare system in which the majority of government welfare spending went to a small, white minority.⁽⁴⁾ This left vast sections of the population without adequate government support.

Presently, the South African NPO sector is characterised by two types of organisations, the first being service driven, and the second being organisations that focus on human rights, advocacy and monitoring. The former fulfils the role of providing much needed social services to underprivileged communities, and the latter performs the role of social ‘watchdog’. It is widely held that a stable and active civil society aids in poverty alleviation and civil society capacity building, enhancing public debate and participation and the promotion of democracy.⁽⁵⁾ Therefore, the need for a healthy and active civil society in SA cannot be overemphasised.

New-generation NGOs

The rise in civil society organisations, not only in South Africa, but around the world, appears to have been influenced by the need for organisations that respond to citizens’ needs at a human level and which can represent them in the face of states of ever-increasing size and a market economy grown so “virtual, large and hyper-real” that it actively alienates most in the general population.⁽⁶⁾ Simultaneously, the state continues to perform less of the functions it should, and civil society organisations (CSOs) arise to ‘fill the democratic vacuum’.⁽⁷⁾ The state is especially withdrawing from many areas of social support,⁽⁸⁾ leaving CSOs to fill the gap. Indeed, it has been argued that the economic imperatives of the neoliberal agenda dictate that “(a) the state, particularly in Third World countries, should withdraw from the social sector; (b) the market should be freed from all constraints; and (c) people in civil society should organise their own social and economic reproduction instead of depending on the state.”⁽⁹⁾ Following the end of apartheid, the South African government adopted a neoliberal economic model, marked by the implementation of the Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) macroeconomic strategy that prioritised the “for-profit sector in economic growth and service delivery.”⁽¹⁰⁾

The current NPO sector can be characterised by what is known as new-generation NGOs. Organisationally they are configured to have strong partnerships with the public and corporate sectors, and have innovative funding models and a variety of resource mobilisation strategies. The partnerships with the state have had the effect of introducing public sector concepts and tools, such as the log frame, targets and results-based management, into the NGO sector.⁽¹¹⁾ Equally, other NGOs have closer relations with corporations, leading them to swing towards increased ‘managerialism’ within their organisations.⁽¹²⁾ These factors have led to the “promotion of more streamlined managerial structures and a higher degree of professionalism within the NPO”⁽¹³⁾ as, over an extended period, basic strategic planning, monitoring, evaluation and general management skills have entered the sector.⁽¹⁴⁾

Furthermore, in light of increasing partnerships with the public and corporate sectors, and the need to develop more innovative ways of raising funds, the need for appropriate levels of accountability and transparency, particularly in the context of widespread corruption, has become more pressing than it was in the past. Particularly, recent growth in the NGO sector has led to calls from the corporate, state and civil sectors, for increased accountability of NGOs.⁽¹⁵⁾ NGOs are increasingly required to adhere to monitoring and evaluation standards applied in the public and corporate sectors, forcing many NGOs to ‘corporatise’.⁽¹⁶⁾

Current issues facing the South African NGO sector

Various factors constrain NGOs in SA in their efforts to fulfil their role of promoting environmental and/or social goals by providing services and performing humanitarian functions, bringing citizens’ concerns to governments, monitoring policies and encouraging political participation.

While the demand for increased accountability and the consequent corporatisation of NGOs are not altogether negative developments, some have argued that they have led to the commercialisation of the NPO sector. NGOs which successfully professionalise stand a better chance of receiving funds from donors, compared to NGOs that follow a more classic donor-beneficiary model.⁽¹⁷⁾ This increased professionalism affects the organisational culture of NGOs, leading many to adopt expertise that is stipulated by donors. In addition, the emergence of a ‘report culture’ has developed, which places more emphasis on measuring and counting ‘activities completed’, ‘performance indicators met’ and ‘outputs achieved,’” than on asking what difference the programme or intervention makes.⁽¹⁸⁾ As such “demands for rigorous standards of accountability, transparency and financial self-sufficiency imposed by donors” on the NPO sector “have the unintended effect of distancing these organisations from the very poor and marginalised communities that they are meant to serve.”⁽¹⁹⁾

Funding is also a major obstacle that NGOs in SA face. As a result of the global economic crisis, from which SA was not spared, the country’s NGOs are experiencing funding problems, as donations, particularly from individual and private donors, have diminished substantially.⁽²⁰⁾ The recession has also seen Corporate Social Investment (CSI) budgets reduced.⁽²¹⁾ As a result of reduced private and corporate donor funding, many NGOs have sought more funding from government to keep afloat, ultimately creating increased competition among NGOs for government funds. The danger in this is that it is questionable whether, under such monetary dependency, especially on government, NGOs can continue to enjoy relative impartiality,⁽²²⁾ due to the expectation that NGOs should be accountable to, and should mirror, funding agencies in their operations. NGOs will inevitably develop a very close relationship with the state, and may, at times, even be difficult to distinguish from the state.⁽²³⁾ Often NGOs become more like the bodies from which they acquire funding, than the societies they intend to represent.⁽²⁴⁾ NGOs are arguably being transformed into “development sub-contractors whose primary concerns are to fulfil the multiple objectives and accountability procedures of their diverse funders.”⁽²⁵⁾ This notion speaks to concerns “that relying on government funding would detract from creating the active citizenry needed to utilise post-apartheid, democratic tools of social change, and that it is possible that diminishing funding has eroded the advocacy function of the NPO sector.”⁽²⁶⁾

It is not just ideological or structural issues that constrain South African NGOs. The Nonprofit Organisations Act of 1997, which was drafted to clarify the NPO sector’s role in the new democratic SA, in practice, proves to be problematic. The Act maintains that government is obliged to create an enabling environment for the nonprofit sector: “every organ of state must determine and coordinate the implementation of its policies and measures in a manner designed to promote, support and enhance the capacity of NPOs to perform their functions.”⁽²⁷⁾ However, many NPOs have difficulty accessing government support, forming partnerships, obtaining funding and building capacity ⁽²⁸⁾ that will allow them to fulfil their mandates.

This is because much government support is geared toward social security, which is characterised by “government’s provision of social grants (which are direct cash transfers) and is strongly remedial and maintenance orientated.”⁽²⁹⁾ This is in contrast to the developmental social service delivery model that government and the NGO sector have attempted to implement post-1994. Developmental social service delivery is an approach that couples skills development projects with social services such as promotion and prevention services, rehabilitation services, protection services, continuing care services and mental health and addiction services.⁽³⁰⁾  It is argued that a developmental approach will be more effective in ensuring that those utilising social security eventually reduce their dependency on social grants and services, and become independent and self-sufficient members of society. However, government has not even been able to keep up with the increasing demands of the poor for basic social services,⁽³¹⁾ and developmental social services, while viewed as being more sustainable in the long run, do not allow NGOs to meet the immediate and vast demands of the masses living below the poverty line.

The issue of qualifying for funding made headline news in South Africa in January 2013 when the Department of Social Development deregistered 36488 of just over 100000 NGOs.⁽³²⁾ This created widespread fear in the sector that fundraising efforts would be thwarted, because, in order to qualify for funding from the government as well the National Lottery Fund, NGOs are required to have a registration number. The department listed the deregistered NGOs as non-compliant because they had not submitted annual and financial reports.⁽³³⁾ This move was controversial, as some NGOs claimed that their documentation was in order and that the Department of Social Development had deregistered these NGOs merely to compensate for the fact that money had previously been given to NGOs without any monitoring and evaluation standards being in place. Therefore, some NGOs labelled the mass deregistration as an attempt by the department to ‘cover-up’ their past inefficiencies.⁽³⁴⁾

Government’s lack of support for NGOs is further evidenced by the fact that many NGOs do not receive government funding because the lack of transparent or standardised criteria for the financing of social services has led to major discrepancies in the allocation of funds to NGOs.⁽³⁵⁾ The Department for Social Development’s Policy on Financial Awards to Service Providers, for example, includedguidelines for the implementation of the policy, which, although intended to provide broad direction, were nevertheless criticised for being too vague, leaving many NGOs unclear on “norms, service standards and key performance indicators,”⁽³⁶⁾ which ultimately inhibits NGOs’ ability to procure funding and ensure optimum function. It is not unreasonable for government to expect NGOs to meet certain funding criteria, but the onus is on government to ensure that criteria are clearly outlined and explained, particularly before they deregister so-called non-compliant NGOs.

Another issue plaguing South African civil society is the increase in government criticism of NGOs and the work they perform. The Mail & Guardian newspaper, for example, described how the South African Democratic Teachers’ Union (SADTU), accused education NGOs of pushing neoliberal agendas through their use of foreign funding.⁽³⁷⁾ SADTU, general secretary Mugwena Maluleke, further accused NGOs of ‘working with other political parties’, and stated that, “they are driving an agenda that education is a national crisis [and] using education to destroy the confidence of the public [in the government].”⁽³⁸⁾ By accusing NGOs of working with other political parties, Maluleke is implying that the NPO sector is ‘anti-government’. However, simply working with political parties other than the ruling party is not evidence that the NGO sector is anti-government. 

It could be argued that Maluleke’s accusations are simply a reaction to NGOs’ exposure of government shortcomings. Many NGOs are independently-funded through foreign and private sources, and, as result, enjoy autonomy, which allows them to lobby and criticise the government. Furthermore, in the case of the textbook crisis that plagued the Limpopo Province, where several schools in the area did not receive the prescribed textbooks that were the responsibility of the Department of Basic Education to provide, NGOs were instrumental in bringing legal action against the government for not meeting its legal and constitutional obligations. Indeed, the basic education department has faced a wave of litigation in 2012, as civil society organisations found themselves ‘forced’ to take legal recourse due to the government's inaction in the face of the crisis in education.₍₃₉₎ Mark Heywood, the director of SECTION27, the organisation that took the basic education department to court twice in 2012 over the non-delivery of textbooks in Limpopo, has alleged that the accusations by SADTU echo those of senior political leaders, South African Communist Party General Secretary, Blade Nzimande, in particular.₍₄₀₎

The inherent contradiction in the criticisms lodged by SADTU is that, while some government departments view NGOs as a threat mainly because they are independently funded, the government makes it so difficult for NGOs to qualify for funding from government itself.

Concluding remarks

In light of the global recession, increased corporatisation and competition, reduced government funding, intangible government funding criteria, and a general lack of government support, the nonprofit sector in SA currently faces many challenges. This is true particularly in the broader social welfare context, in that the South African Government has appeared to follow neoliberal socio-economic policies, which, by definition, require social spending rollbacks. It can also be asserted that “the politics of the day substantially influences funding policies”⁽⁴¹⁾ which now seems to be making  its way into the current government’s approach to welfare, with the bulk of government spending going to social security as opposed to social service delivery and social development. After all, it is much easier, if short sighted, to keep voters happy with direct cash transfers in the form of grants, than by implementing developmental projects that do not necessarily see immediate results.

Government’s requirements for registration as an NPO are justified and compliance with criteria for registration is necessary. However, regulation and support must act in tandem, because focusing solely on compliance and regulation without providing the necessary support would result in the alienation of a large part SA’s nonprofit sector, particularly smaller NGOs.⁽⁴²⁾ Furthermore, an unintended consequence of the reorientation of accountability away from the grassroots is that it leads to NGOs and their funders becoming complicit in “perpetuating the syndrome of disadvantage by turning accountability away from the beneficiaries towards the funders.”⁽⁴³⁾ 

The South African nonprofit sector plays a vital part in assisting the government to fulfil its constitutional mandate. The socio-economic rights enshrined in the constitution would be out of reach for most South Africans if not for the presence of a vibrant and active nonprofit sector.⁽⁴⁴⁾ Despite this, a disturbing trend of civil society criticism by government factions is creeping into public discourse. Under apartheid, independent civil society was the voice of resistance, and a result was criticised and discriminated against by the government. Arguably, this trend is being revitalised. Should the civil sector suffer such criticism, and, more importantly, can government afford to alienate the sector considering that it is picking up much of government’s slack?

Notes:

Lauren Stuart, Consultancy Africa’s Intelligence (CAI) Africa Watch Unit (africa.watch@consultancyafrica.com). This CAI paper was developed with the assistance of Claire Furphy and was edited by Nicky Berg.
This edition of the CAI Africa Unit Watch Issues Newsletter is republished here with permission from Consultancy Africa Intelligence (CAI), a South African-based research and strategy firm with a focus on social, health, political and economic trends and developments in Africa. For more information, see www.consultancyafrica.com or www.ngopulse.org/press-release/consultancy-africa-intelligence. Alternatively, click here to take advantage of CAI’s free, no obligation, 1-month trial to the company’s Standard Report Series.
In addition to topical discussion papers and tailored research services, CAI releases a number of fortnightly and monthly publications, examining the latest developments in Africa, across a wide range of interest areas. Interested parties can click here to take advantage of CAI’s free, no obligation, 1-month trial to any/all of the CAI publications.
For more information, see www.consultancyafrica.com or www.ngopulse.org/press-release/consultancy-africa-intelligence.

(2) Jankelowitz, L., 2007. Managing South African nonprofit organisations for sustainability.Unpublished Master’s Thesis. University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg; The South African Department of Social Development refers to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and community based organisations (CBOs) collectively as nonprofit organisations.
(3) Weisbrod, B.A., 1986. “Toward a theory of the voluntary non-profit sector in a three sector economy”, in Rose-Ackerman, S. (ed.). The economics of nonprofit institutions.Studies in structure and policy. Oxford University Press: New York.
(4) Patel, L., 2005. Social welfare and social development. Oxford University Press: Cape Town.
(5) Ibid.
(6) Pratt, B. and Myhrman, T., ‘Improving aid effectiveness: A review of recent initiatives for civil society organisations’, International NCO Training and Resource Centre, May 2009, www.intrac.org.
(7) Ibid.
(8) Ibid.
(9) Ibid.
(10) ‘Critical perspectives on sustainability of the South African civil society sector’, Charities Aid Foundation Southern Africa, 2012, www.ngopulse.org.
(11) Pratt, B. and Myhrman, T., ‘Improving aid effectiveness: A review of recent initiatives for civil society organisations’, International NCO Training and Resource Centre, May 2009, www.intrac.org.
(12) Dhunpath, R., 2003. It's all businesslike now: The corporatisation and professionalisation of NGO in South Africa. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, 3, pp. 1109-1124.
(13) Mueller–Hirth, N., 2010. “South African NGOs and the public sphere: Between popular movements and partners for development”, in Fowler, A. and Malunga, C. (eds.). NGO management: The Earthscan companion. Earthscan: London.
(14) Pratt, B. and Myhrman, T., ‘Improving aid effectiveness: A review of recent initiatives for civil society organisations’, International NCO Training and Resource Centre, May 2009, www.intrac.org.
(15) Gray, R., Bebbington, J. and Collison, D., 2006. NGOs, civil society and accountability: Making the people accountable to capital. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(3), pp. 319-348.
(16) Pratt, B. and Myhrman, T., ‘Improving aid effectiveness: A review of recent initiatives for civil society organisations’, International NCO Training and Resource Centre, May 2009, www.intrac.org.
(17) Ibid.
(18) Ibid.
(19) ‘Critical perspectives on sustainability of the South African civil society sector’, Charities Aid Foundation Southern Africa, 2012, www.ngopulse.org.
(20) Davis, R., ‘The great NGO crisis part II’, The Daily Maverick, 23 October 2012, www.dailymaverick.co.za.
(21) ‘Critical perspectives on sustainability of the South African civil society sector’, Charities Aid Foundation Southern Africa, 2012, www.ngopulse.org.
(22) Habib, A. and Taylor, R., 1999. South Africa: Anti- apartheid NGO’s in transition. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organisations, 10 (1), pp. 73-82
(23) Pratt, B. and Myhrman, T., ‘Improving aid effectiveness: A review of recent initiatives for civil society organisations’, International NCO Training and Resource Centre, May 2009, www.intrac.org.
(24) Ibid.
(25) Dhunpath, R., 2003. It's all businesslike now: The corporatisation and professionalisation of NGO in South Africa. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, 3, pp. 1109-1124.
(26) ‘Critical perspectives on sustainability of the South African civil society sector’, Charities Aid Foundation Southern Africa, 2012, www.ngopulse.org.
(27) Ibid.
(28) Habib, A. and Taylor, R., 1999. South Africa: Anti- apartheid NGO’s in transition. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organisations, 10 (1), pp. 73-82.
(29) Lombard, A., 2008. The impact of social transformation on the non-government welfare sector and the social work profession. International Journal of Social Welfare, 17(2), pp. 124-131.
(30)   Social development paper
(31) Ibid
(32) Child, K., ‘Big back track on NGOs’, Times Live, 28 January 2013, www.timeslive.co.za.
(33) Ibid.
(34) Ibid.
(35) Lombard, A., 2008. The impact of social transformation on the non-government welfare sector and the social work profession. International Journal of Social Welfare, 17(2), pp. 124-131
(36) Ibid.
(37) John, V, ‘SADTU warns it will go after NGOs’, Mail & Guardian, 2 November 2012, http://mg.co.za.
(38) Ibid.
(39) Ibid.
(40) Ibid.
(41) Lombard, A., 2008. The impact of social transformation on the non-government welfare sector and the social work profession. International Journal of Social Welfare, 17(2), pp. 124-131.
(42) Wyngaard, R., ‘The South African NPO crisis - time to join hands’, SANGO Pulse, 12 March 2013, www.ngopulse.org.
(43) Dhunpath, R., 2003. It's all businesslike now: The corporatisation and professionalisation of NGO in South Africa. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, 3, pp. 1109-1124.
(44) Wyngaard, R., ‘The South African NPO crisis - time to join hands’, SANGO Pulse, 12 March 2013, www.ngopulse.org.

Post-1994, the tasks of confronting social inequalities and driving development in South Africa have increasingly become the work of civil society organisations (CSOs). This sector is already saddled with a mammoth task, but now also faces challenging economic and political constraints that have forced some CSOs to scale down on their activities, or close their doors altogether.

According to a recent survey conducted by GreaterGood South Africa, 80 percent of CSOs participating in the 2012 Job Losses and Service Cuts study have experienced significant declines in funding. This has also led to increased anxiety about the future health of the sector. The downsizing and closure of several established human rights and peace-building organisations in the country has forced CSOs, as well as government, corporate and philanthropic initiatives, to re-strategise and find new funding practices and alternative models, in order to keep to their mandates in a restrictive climate.

These new challenges raise a few fundamentally relevant questions for the sector. Who should ultimately foot the bill for the crucial work carried out by civil society? How best can the different role-players face the current challenges, and achieve both the support and reforms that the country and the sector so desperately need? How best should these challenges be approached, and what opportunities and new models exist that would aid in overcoming the sector’s current uncertainties?

A look at the civil society landscape reveals that, in the BRICS [Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa] economies alone, there has been a major increase in the numbers of CSOs. The Yearbook of International Organisations estimates that there are approximately 3.3 million registered nonprofits in India, 338 000 in Brazil and 460 000 in China – growth in the sector is particularly pronounced in these emerging economies. With about 90 000 organisations in South Africa working across a range of different focal areas, CSOs take on a substantive role as convenors, facilitators and advocates. However, these high numbers also mean an exceedingly competitive environment and a contest for financial support that plays out across the global stage.

Given these levels of competition, as well as contracting funds from many northern state funders and philanthropic organisations in the continued aftermath of the recession, many CSOs have looked to corporate social responsibility investment (CSI) initiativesas an under-tapped source of support. According to Trialogue’s 15th edition of The CSI Handbook, South African corporates spent R6.9 billion on CSI in 2012. Many corporates, however, have not traditionally funded peace and human rights work, and in fact seem to steer directly away from these areas. There is also a general misperception that CSOs which receive corporate funding are inherently working in opposition to the state, or actively undermining sovereignty. This view has begun to change, however, and many corporates are now both active contributors to governance and economic policy processes, and stakeholders and partners to CSOs.

In fact, partnerships for sustainability between civil society and the private sector should be valued highly now more than ever, and are needed if South Africa is to achieve its developmental goals and realisesolutions for ongoing peace and reconciliation work. But these crucial partnerships can only produce the best results if government is also involved in agenda-setting and joint planning. Civil society also needs to be a part of multi-stakeholder platforms if these are to lead to effective practice. Bearing these considerations in mind, formalised efforts to align strategic priorities could translate into greater impact, compared with fragmented efforts of government, the private sector or civil society acting alone.

South Africa may have some of the best laws and policies in the world, but problems with implementation are principle causes of recent protest and social unrest. Particularly in the wake of the fatal shooting of protestors at the Lonmin-Marikana mine last year, integrated efforts by all stakeholders could lead to greater stability and prevent future tragedies of this kind.

New opportunities for collaboration also exist through the explosion of technology and social media use, which has revolutionised the work of many CSOs. Citizens and organisations involved in the ‘Arab Spring’ uprisings, as well as initiatives such as the Right2Know Campaign in South Africa show just how powerful and effective social media can be as an advocacy and activist tool. Sceptics might question the mobilisation and advocacy capacity of organisations that work, and build a following and support base primarily online, but the results speak for themselves. For CSOs working in a funding-constrained environment, this trend may increase cost-effectiveness, sustainability, and new, replicable modes of working. In fact, with such rapid technological changes afoot, it is becoming clear that organisations without a strong online presence may ultimately be left behind. Strategising and planning around these changes are critical, as is advocacy around increasing internet accessibility for those who aren’t currently connected.

Looking further into the future, the World Economic Forum (WEF) has developed four scenarios on the possible role of civil society organisations in the eventuality of failing economies and political instability. CSOs need to undergo intense and critical self-examination, and assess their roles in relation to both current and future possibilities. Those of us within the sector need to continually ask ourselves whether we are adequately prepared for worst-case scenarios, in which access to funding continues to diminish as a result of scarce resources, global competition and geopolitical uncertainty.

In a turbulent world, it is likely that CSOs will be forced to become more self-critical in order to prepare for new opportunities and challenges – not only in terms of funding practices, but also to ensure their continued relevance in ever-changing times. It is fundamentally important that CSOs begin looking now at new collaborations for sustainability, innovative fundraising and cost-saving tactics, and tests of impact and relevance, and not just simply invoice governments and corporates.

- Juzaida Swain is programme officer for fundraising and strategy at the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation (IJR). This article first appeared in the SA Reconciliation Barometer newsletter.