For the most recent edition of Vértices, we spoke with Philipp Schönrock, executive director of CEPEI and president of the Board of Directors of the Colombian Confederation of NGOs, about the crisis of cooperation and the opportunities that are opening up for the impact ecosystem. Here we share the full conversation.

What has been the impact you are seeing on civil society organizations due to the crisis of cooperation?

We are facing a financing crisis that has been brewing for years. Latin American countries have long been considered middle-income countries, and therefore capable of financing their own projects. However, at the same time we face a low mobilization of resources at the domestic level, either through philanthropy or state funds channeled to civil society organizations.

I would say that this crisis was not only seen coming, but was already manifesting itself, especially in official development assistance. Although this type of cooperation reached historic levels during the COVID-19 pandemic, or in humanitarian aid contexts such as Ukraine or Iraq, it has now decreased again. What we are seeing is a funding crisis in the international system, whose model is in crisis. This situation is visible both in European countries and now in the United States, where, although the discourse and the form change, the impact is very similar.

I see an immediate crisis first. The closing of USAID funds, for example, is affecting the ability of organizations to cover their most basic operating expenses, especially in a country like Colombia. We are not, in general, facing a life and death humanitarian crisis like those we see in Sudan or Yemen, where the lack of cooperation has very serious consequences. But there are specific cases of high impact, and, in any case, it is a real crisis that affects the people who work in the organizations - the implementers - and also the beneficiary populations, who lose access to essential services. And that is where I begin to see an even deeper, medium- and long-term crisis. 

What can be done in the face of this crisis? Is diversification really a viable solution in the short term?

The diversification issue generates some curiosity in me, because it is something we should have been talking about for a long time. It's not a conversation that arises solely because of the exit of USAID funds.

So where can we diversify? First of all, I think we should start with internal diversification. But that is especially complex for some sectors, such as independent journalism or journalist consortiums, which are among the most affected. Such diversification is, first, complex; second, limited by the scarcity of local sources; and third, it takes time.

It is not like going to the supermarket and switching from one brand of water to another. Diversifying implies investment, knowledge of the ecosystem, and preparation. The requirements for accessing funds - both locally and internationally - are increasingly higher. Organizations are expected to have clear policies on issues such as transparency, accountability, gender, harassment prevention, among others. And it is not just a matter of having these policies to comply with, but of believing in them and translating them into black and white. That takes time, resources and capabilities.

In the immediate term, it is crucial to strengthen the civil society ecosystem. We have a great disparity of capacities between grassroots, philanthropic and big-budget organizations. Diversification, in this context, has to be gradual. 

To generate impact, we need to unite and present more ambitious proposals together. Today's donors demand clear evidence of impact, and that also forces us to rethink our ways of operating, because the pressure is now greater. There is a global narrative that seeks to counteract other narratives on diversity, inclusion or climate change, and this has led donors to demand greater clarity and more tangible results.

We have to start thinking about projects that generate consortiums of capabilities and have much more ambitious impacts. Small projects are very difficult to survive.

What do you think is the challenge in communicating the impact of organizations that do not work in sectors such as humanitarian aid, but do equally relevant work?

I think the first thing we must assume is that measuring the impact of our work is not easy. That is the reality. For example, when an organization influences public policy, such as on transparency issues, how do we measure whether we made a good law or whether we prevented a bad one from being passed? That kind of impact is very difficult to quantify.

A congressman, for example, is not going to come out and say: "We made this decision because organization X accompanied us in the process", even if that has happened. That impact exists, but it is rarely recognized, much less easily measured.

Therefore, I believe that the starting point is to better define our objectives: do we want to open a debate, encourage greater participation, make the processes more holistic and participatory? If we start from there, we can also have a better definition of what we want to achieve and how we measure whether we are doing it.

We need, then, to establish indicators of success from the beginning, in a strategic way. That will also allow us to build a clear narrative for donors and other audiences. Because, although I am convinced of the value of data, I do not believe that we will win this narrative with figures alone. It's about how we translate that data and insert it into the spaces of public discussion.

What role do donors play here and how to change the logic of relationship with them?

There is also a structural challenge there. Many times we are victims of our own design, we address too many issues at the same time, without a clear basis on what we want to influence. That makes it difficult to build measurable results and a solid narrative. In many cases, we end up pursuing indicators that are not aligned with our mission, but with what the donor asks for in a call for proposals or project.

We continue to operate from the logic of the donor's supply, not from our own demand as a sector. And this is connected to the debate on localization: if the sector does not articulate itself and does not demand other conditions, everything will remain the same. Each organization adapts to what the donor wants, and in this way we continue to perpetuate the model.

However, there are donors who offer greater freedom: they even transfer funds in advance and allow autonomous execution. But there are also others who ask for proposals with three quotes for everything, and this is no longer based on trust or co-creation, but on a position of almost structural distrust.

So, yes, donors need to change. But I also believe that this change only happens when they have a strong, organized and coherent counterpart in front of them.

What is happening with the social sector and how can it be strengthened so that, in times of crisis such as these, there is a stronger and more cohesive sector?

I believe that we do not have a unified voice, even at the national or territorial level. Most organizations today are in survival mode, not in co-creation or strategic relevance mode. And that, from my perspective, is a serious mistake. 

But it is also a problem of tactics and strategy. There is very little leadership, and those that exist wear out quickly. It is very difficult to sustain leadership when everyone says what they do not want, but few articulate what they do want. This requires a clear and decisive investment on the part of the organizations to build legitimate representations.

Why is an organization like ANDI able to raise its voice so strongly? Because it has structure, weight, organizational capabilities, financial sustainability. All this gives it legitimacy. And that is precisely what I am not seeing in the social sector today. And it worries me, because it gives the impression that only the strongest will survive.

But not only that; those who move further away from their original mission will also survive. We are already seeing organizations that used to work in health and are now focusing on education or any other issue, simply because they need to survive. And that is very dangerous.

I do not see a strong base for civil society in Colombia at the moment, nor in the region. Nor do I see it getting stronger. There are powerful social movements, groups that exert strong pressure. But when we talk about organized civil society -structures with governance, shared agenda, collective voice-, we are in one of the weakest moments. And that also has to do with the lack of a common narrative, of a clear direction, of a symbolism that allows us to articulate ourselves.

But then what is the role of the Colombian Confederation of NGOs and similar organizations at a time like this?

The role of the Confederation, and similar organizations, should be to represent the sector, to defend its interests, to articulate it on major issues. That should be its natural role. But the reality is that the Confederation is in the same dilemma as many other organizations: trying to survive. 

That is precisely why, as we said before, we should strengthen a base such as the Confe or the regional federations. But at the moment, many of them are more in survival mode than in relevance mode. And a very clear example, when there is a pension reform, it is the non-profit organizations that have been hit the hardest.

Another example: if one compares the requirements demanded of a social organization versus those faced by a company, the difference is abysmal. On our platforms, we have to upload everything from a resume to an income tax return, and God knows what else. This has even led many organizations to ask themselves: wouldn't it be better to operate as a social impact company?

Therefore, a platform such as the Confederation should play this role of representation, but today it is limited due to lack of capacity.

Do you see a strategic alliance between the social sector and the private sector as a way of diversification?

On paper it sounds very nice, but in reality, I see it as very difficult. I do not see the private sector as a real driver of sustainability for social organizations at this time. There may be some interesting public-private partnerships in areas such as infrastructure, health or education, but I do not see the will or the commitment of a private sector that says: "I am going to allocate 10% of my profits to social impact investment". That is not happening, at least not systematically.

One might think that issues such as transparency or access to reliable information are regional public goods that should be of interest to the private sector. But I do not see a private sector involved, active, with a long-term vision. There are some exceptions that generate certain expectations, such as what the Velez Reyes Foundation is trying to do. That, at least, gives the impression of having a clearer focus. But we would have to see if they really achieve the impact and scale they are announcing.

Moreover, it is a path that we have already explored quite a bit. Public-private partnerships are very difficult, because of the legal framework, because of the lack of an enabling environment, because of differences in capacity or because of the will of the parties. So I don't see the private sector as the great solution to the sustainability problems we are currently facing. 

In closing, if you had to think of something positive that could come out of this crisis, what do you think could be the opportunity?

I believe there are many opportunities in this crisis. The first is that we have to become aware of our real financing possibilities. And I think that is a discussion that is going to be good for us as a sector. The second thing is that, as some organizations move forward, their capabilities are going to improve. They're going to be more impact-oriented, which is something we've been talking about. And thirdly, I believe that this situation is making us pinch ourselves in the face of a reality: we cannot continue to depend exclusively on external actors to finance issues that are internal, which we should already assume. 

This debate is finally taking place. Some of us have been proposing it for more than a decade, but unfortunately it is the crisis that forces us to put these issues on the table. So we have to take advantage of it. I am not seeing this situation as something fatalistic, quite the contrary. I see many possibilities, but we have to keep them within the realities and utopias that we are seeing.

‍