As Foreign Funding Dries Up, Gansu NGOs Find It Harder to Survive

China Development Brief, No. 51 (Fall 2011)

中文 English

Introduction: This article examines the dilemma faced by grassroots NGOs in the western part of China with the decline of international funding, and whether domestic funding, particularly from private foundations, might fill the gap. The challenges of grassroots NGOs attracting support from Chinese foundations, which tend to have a different approach than international funders, is a theme that runs throughout our Special Issue on Philanthropy and Civil Society in China

Chinese grassroots NGOs have from their very beginning been dependent on Western funding, governance models and philosophies.  Although the development of Chinese civil society and the sequencing of economic transition in China are not entirely decided at the local level, regional civil societies have distinct characteristics based on differences in cultural backgrounds and economic development levels.  For example, NGOs in western provinces favor more foreign funding assistance than groups in the central provinces.  This has resulted in Yunnan and Chengdu in the southwest, and Shaanxi in the northwest, developing a larger civil society community than other provinces. In 2005, when China Development Brief staff conducted capacity building training in Qinghai,  they noticed that local minority speakers were more fluent in English than Chinese, providing a glimpse of the significant role played by “foreign milk (funding)” in the development of these grassroots organizations.

In the western provinces, Gansu’s poverty, environment, education and other related problems require the participation of local NGOs; however, the development of civil society organizations in Gansu has lagged behind with only a few organizations known to the outside world. Relative to other regions, Gansu NGOs are not active enough; in fact, a few years ago, only 20 to 30 local organizations had been formed. In recent years, international funding has gradually declined in China, but that decline is countered by the gradual growth in domestic investment1.  Will Gansu’s NGOs be able to survive in this changing environment?

The Current Situation

At the beginning of this year, the head of the Gansu Yutian Rural Development Volunteer Team (甘肃雨田农村发展志愿者团队 hereinafter referred to as “Yutian”), Hu Xiaojun was talking about whether Gansu NGOs were on the decline.  By mid-year, Yutian had ceased operating. In 2007, several graduate and doctoral classmates formed the core volunteers that founded Yutian; however, when these students graduated, the continued existence of the organization became a problem. In 2010, half of the students graduated and had to decide whether to leave the organization or stay to work on the poverty alleviation of rural communities. This was a difficult choice since the pay level of local grassroots NGOs is low. Hu Xiaojun, as the person in charge, recommended that they look for other jobs. Li Jianqiang was once part of this core of volunteers, but last year moved to work in the Chengdu office of Oxfam Hong Kong (香港乐施会). This summer, all of the core volunteers graduate  and current projects end, so Hu Xiaojun will go to Guangzhou to focus on researching the domestic charity field.

Yutian is an important partner for a number of international organizations, so its closure is a loss for its international partners working in the western part of China. Before Hu Xiaojun leaves for Guangzhou, he must spend a lot of energy to explain the reason for his relocation to their partners.

If the closure of Yutian was due to special factors, other organizations also experienced similar changes over the last few years. As the director of the Lanzhou Xingbang Cultural Renewal Consulting Service Center (兰州兴邦文化咨询服务中心 hereinafter referred to as “Lanzhou Cultural Center”) told students, a few years ago, not just capital investment, but also a variety of trainings, meetings, and project bidding notices were abundant. But since last year, these opportunities have declined, and he rarely hears of NGO trainings or various forums being offered.

Similarly, the situation of shrinking funds occurred in other organizations, such as the Lanzhou Cultural Center’s long-term donors – the Canada Fund ’s investment in China was also reduced year by year, and only a few long-term partners continue to receive funding assistance. Hu Xiaojun also mentioned that in the past a centain embassy supported one-year projects, but now all projects have been changed to only six months, which is too short of a time period to complete community projects in rural areas. Many bilateral projects such as these are in transition.

Funding is not the biggest problem

The above changes give the impression that the problem is one of “not enough money”, but both the Lanzhou Cultural Center and Yutian say that “money is not the biggest problem.”

In 2004, the Center attempted to register with the Bureau of Civil Affairs but was not successful.  In May 2005 after registering as a commercial entity, it developed a comprehensive set of NGO capacity-building, entrepreneurial skills training, volunteer service, education and poverty alleviation programs. Now its main work is in three areas: Minority College Students Small  Loan Project (in collaboration with a number of other institutions), Gansu Province Capacity Building Training Programs for civil society organizations (in cooperation with the Misereor Foundation 米苏尔基金会), and a College Volunteers Support and Education Project (in cooperation with the Gansu Province Minority Culture and Education Advancement Society (甘肃省少数民族文化教育促进会)).

Although international funding is gradually being phased out, the Canada Fund continues to support the Center which began cooperating with a Hong Kong organization on a microfinance project  though due to the instability of funding sources, the Center is now in the process of  localizing its programs and funding. In 2010, it was awarded the China Merchants Group (招商局) Poverty Alleviation Innovative Action Award and the One Foundation’s “Potential Innovation Model Award”, with the prize money allocated to the entire project.  It also intends to establish long-term relationships with local companies in Gansu in order to establish a fund of its own but the plan has not yet succeeded. As a consequence of receiving the One Foundation award, it is discussing its capacity-building program. It also received 170,000 RMB this year from the China Foundation for Poverty Alleviation which provided 5 million RMB to fund NGOs working in earthquake-stricken areas.

The Center’s Bai Shengyi stated: “We’ve determined our purpose, service areas and development goals, and hope that international institutions such as the Misereor Foundation will continue to cooperate with us; however, we now seek diversified funding sources not limited to international organizations.”

Hu Xiaojun also responded by saying: “Funding has never been a big problem. With the rise of domestic private foundations, many of these foundations began supporting grassroots NGOs, which from the perspective of grassroots NGO development is an important strategic opportunity. In addition, Yutian previously strategically partnered with some donors which is not the same as just passively applying for projects and could propose its own ideas.  The main problem then is not money but rather resources and policy uncertainty regarding the registration thresholds for grassroots public interest organizations.”

The voluntary decision by Yutian to stop operating was due in part to low salaries which cannot guarantee an adequate standard of living for practitioners, and also in part to a difficult policy environment. One of Yutian’s funders and partners has an office in Kunming, Yunnan Province where the new regulation rules that INGOs should not fund Chinese NGOs registered as business2.  Similar requirements have not yet emerged in the Northwest provinces so, in the meantime,  international donors are walking a fine legal line between funding groups registered as businesses and not giving the provincial governments an excuse to close down all projects by explicitly breaking the law.  But the overall trend is that organizations not registered through normal channels will face more restrictions3.

Yutian, Lanzhou Cultural Center, and Green Camel Bell (绿驼铃) are undoubtedly the best grassroots organizations in Gansu, but there are only a few groups like this because unregistered groups cannot receive funding and therefore face limited project opportunities. Gansu’s other groups – such as an environmental organization said it is losing interest in the work because it finds it difficult to secure even a few thousand RMB in funding.

Founded in 2005, the Gansu Yixin Psychological Counseling Center (甘肃怡欣心理咨询中心), developed rapidly over the last two or three years. The agency works on post-disaster reconstruction projects, and also received an award from the Foundation for Poverty Alleviation. Bai Shengyi thinks that previously international foundations could give start-up funding to all types of grassroots organizations, but now foundations can only support stable groups. For newly formed grassroots organizations, the ability to proactively design and plan projects will determine whether groups can obtain financial assistance from donors.  From the donor perspective, regardless of what stage of development a group is in, groups that can implement and manage the project, with or without a reputation for doing this type of work, are more likely to be considered for funding.

Factors Behind the “Good Old Days” and the Recent Decline

At its peak, Gansu had an estimated 20-30 active grassroots organizations. In what environment were these organizations formed? One founder of a local grassroots organization said that first, macroeconomic policy at that time was more lenient so that the government encouraged and supported these groups, and second, that international development agencies sought domestic partners for project management, leading to more support for funding, capacity-building training, as well as funding for small projects.

From Bai Shengyi’s perspective, 2003 to 2005 was a relatively fast period of growth for Gansu NGOs. One very important reason for this rapid development until as late as 2007, is that Oxfam Hong Kong became very active in Gansu by initiating more projects and activities, holding international NGO meetings, trainings, and offering small grants.  In particular, increased investment in capacity building for grassroots groups fueled this period of enthusiastic growth.

The Director of Lanzhou University’s  Western Environment and Social Development Center (兰州大学西部环境与社会发展中心,hereafter Western Development Center), Ding Wenguang,  contends that after the “color revolutions” between 2000 and 2005, many types of development projects were no longer encouraged4. However, community development ‘hardware’ projects such as rural infrastructure, disaster management, poverty alleviation are still encouraged. Two factors result in relevant government departments in Gansu controlling  foreign NGO activities. First, some international development agencies do not understand Chinese policies and engage in sensitive activities that upset the government; and second, grassroots NGOs are not informed about the government’s management program and fail to register their projects. Ding Wenguang believes that the improved implementation in both of these areas will  satisfy  the government, and result in better projects for the community.

Founded by Professor Ding, the Western Development Center was approved by Lanzhou University.  It also successfully registered as a “civil non-enterprise unit” (民非) with the Gansu Provincial Civil Affairs Department under the name “Gansu Modern Environment and Social Development Research Center” (甘肃省现代环境与社会发展研究中心,hereafter the Gansu Research Center). The Center is committed to working with government agencies, intergovernmental organizations, academic institutions and development agencies at home and abroad, on challenging development projects in the areas of climate change, community development, disaster management, ecological poverty alleviation, environmental education and capacity-building. The Center “walks on two legs” meaning that half of the organization (Western Development Center) is affiliated with the university, while the other half (Gansu Research Center) is a legally registered organization with the Civil Affairs bureau.  This dual status creates a better working environment than that experienced by grassroots organizations.

Hu Xiaojun contends that the color revolutions did not discourage civil society development.  In fact, civil society organizations developed quite rapidly in Gansu in 2005-2006. One sign of this is that Lanzhou University convened a “NGOs Develop Harmonious Society Symposium ” in 2005. This was a large-scale symposium, with the director and other leaders of the NGO Management Bureau in the Gansu Provincial Civil Affairs Department attending.

Prior to 2005, large-scale capacity-building was not present in western regions such as Shaanxi and Gansu; however, in 2005 and 2006, Gansu and Shaanxi saw the emergence  of several organizations, such as the Shaanxi Women’s Studies Institute (陕西妇女研究会) and  Lanzhou University’s Community Development Center (兰州大学社区发展中心).  Later, the Community Center was unable to continue its work, and the Shaanxi Women’s Studies Institute continued its work alone. In addition, after the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, disaster relief became a major “theme” of NGO work, with many other projects being shelved, and donors focusing  support on joint projects and showing less interest in long-term capacity-building.

Future Concerns about the New Environment

Several Gansu NGOs believe that the greatest impact on the development of Gansu civil society organizations is not the withdrawal of international donors. Although some donors have begun to reduce funding or withdraw altogether, there are also new donors entering Gansu. For example, a Hong Kong foundation and a GONGO partnered to set up an office in Gansu a year ago, and Oxfam Hong Kong is increasing its investment in the western provinces and has expanded its Gansu office. Moreover, the diversification of funding sources means that the impact of decreased foreign funding is not large.

Regarding NGOs in Gansu, the biggest factors shaping NGO development are government policy and capacity building.

Problems of Projects Funded by Chinese Foundations

In recent years the rapid development of domestic foundations has proceeded inexorably, with the more established organizations from Gansu and other areas accepting new domestic resources. According to the experience of several organizations who were awarded domestic funding, project bidding for both international foundations and domestic ones is the same.  The project should address local needs, the budget should be reasonable and the application should be logically organized.

However, the practice of domestic and foreign foundations does diverge when it comes to evaluating the project’s worth. One founder of a grassroots organization stated that international donors generally first conduct field investigations and ample discussions, regardless of the size of projects, before the grassroots organizations begin project proposals leading to application success rates of 60 percent. International donors even participate in and help modify the project proposals. This type of solid pre-assessment work, while perhaps producing expensive and unattractive proposals, allows donors to identify truly valuable projects.

Domestic foundations differ in their approach.  For example, recently when the China Foundation for Poverty Alleviation allocated 5 million yuan in funding for project bidding in disaster areas, some project budgets went over by 400,000 to 500,000 RMB and had to trimmed. The practice of the Foundation was to first screen the project proposals and then concentrate the projects in certain areas, but even really big projects did not require field research or visits to project sites to pass the selection process.

Another problem, as Ding Wenguang notes, is that in recent years the resources of domestic development organizations have undergone structural changes as the proportion of local resources has significantly increased. Many local foundations, especially private foundations, are founded by private entrepreneurs, and these institutions support the implementation of projects related to the entrepreneur’s personal interests, and not the needs of western provinces. The fact that a considerable number of the NGOs winning awards are from big cities reflects the need to improve the fairness and transparency of the award process. A second problem is that domestic NGOs commonly lack high-quality project officers.  A third problem is that the systematic nature and sustainability of projects is not strong and has not made much progress in recent years.

Conclusion

Through funding assistance, the international development sector in China has been instrumental in creating a number of NGOs over the last 20 years.  However, Ding Wenguang believes that in Gansu, the number of GONGOs are increasing and the number of grassroots organizations supported by international institutions is on the decline. As domestic funding replaces international funds, we may see  changes in the power structure within the public interest sector, and  learn from the past 20 years about  the successes and failures of civil society organizations.


  1. Editor’s Note: The growth in domestic funding is coming from the rapid rise of Chinese foundations.  See our Special Issue on Philanthropy and Civil Society in China 

  2. Editor’s Note: At the end of 2009, the Yunnan provincial government issued a new regulation governing international NGOs.  This new regulation established a documentation (备案) system that allowed INGOs to gain quasi-legal status.  As a result of that regulation, INGOs were also required to document their projects and local partners.  If the local partners were Chinese grassroots NGOs, then they had to be registered with Civil Affairs.  Grassroots groups registered as businesses would therefore have difficult partnering with INGOs under this new documentation system. 

  3. Editor’s Note: In other words, organizations not registered with Civil Affairs will continue to face more barriers as the government seeks to standardize the public welfare system. 

  4. Editor’s Note: the “color revolutions” refer to the regime changes that took place in 2004-2005 in the former Soviet republics such as the Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan. China criticized the role that “democracy promotion” NGOs played in these regime changes and afterwards begun to more closely monitor and control the work of INGOs in China. 

“羊奶”渐少,甘肃草根NGO生存趋于艰难
刘海英
中国发展简报2011秋季刊第51卷
中国草根组织的发育初期乃至今日,一直仰赖西方资助和输入治理模式、价值观。中国民间组织的发展与中国经济阶梯型的发展次序不一致的地方是,西部NGO由于其独特的地理位置和文化背景、经济发展水平等原因,比中部获得了更多国外资助方的青睐,西南的云南、成都、西北的陕西都是民间组织大省。2005年,中国发展简报曾经在青海做过能力建设培训,当地发言的少数民族同胞的英语水平好过汉语,可管窥“羊奶”在草根组织的发育、发展中的重要角色。
在西部诸省中,甘肃的贫困、环境、教育等相关问题同样突出,需要NGO特别是本土NGO的参与,然而甘肃民间组织的发育显得有点冷清,能被外界耳熟能详的只有几家组织。但即便相对其他地区,甘肃NGO不够活跃,前些年也有20~30家组织在当地扎根。近年来,时有国际资金逐步消减在中国的资助乃至撤出的消息,另外一面是国内资金投入逐步增多,资金来源呈现更替的趋势。这种变局的端倪是否已经影响到甘肃NGO的生存?
现状
今年初曾经和甘肃雨田农村发展志愿者团队(以下简称“雨田”)的负责人胡小军讨论甘肃NGO是否出现衰落的迹象,到了年中,得知雨田已经停止运作。2007年一些在校硕士研究生和博士研究生作为核心志愿者创办了雨田,当这些学生面临毕业的时候,组织的存废就是一个要面对的问题。2010年他们当中即有一半人面临着毕业,也曾纠结于自己的去留,想留下来继续从事农村社区的扶贫工作,但是当地草根NGO的薪酬水平不足以保障他们的生活。胡小军作为负责人,建议他们去找另外的工作。曾经是核心志愿者的李健强去年到了香港乐施会成都办公室工作。到今年夏天,核心志愿者已全部毕业,手头上的项目也告一段落,于是胡小军也南下广州,专注于国内公益慈善领域的研究工作。
雨田是一些国际组织重要的合作伙伴,它的停业对在西部开展工作的国际合作伙伴而言也是一个损失。因此胡小军南下之前,花了很大精力向曾经的合作伙伴解释去向和原由。
如果说雨田的停业有其特殊的因素,其他组织同样也体会到这几年的变化。兰州兴邦文化咨询服务中心(以下简称“兴邦”)主任摆生义说,前几年,不光是资金投入,还有各种培训、会议、项目招标的通知会很多。但是从去年起这样的信息就少了,今年很少听说NGO有培训和各种论坛。
同样的,资金出现萎缩的情况也发生在其他组织身上,比如兴邦长期的资助方——加拿大基金在华投入也逐年减少,只有几个老的合作伙伴还继续受到资助。胡小军也提到,某国大使馆的基金项目以前还支持一年期的项目,现在全部项目改成半年期的,而农村社区项目半年很难做完成一个周期。诸如此类的很多双边项目都在转型。
资金不是最大的问题
上述变化给人第一印象就是“钱少了”,但对于兴邦和雨田而言,他们都说“资金不是最大的问题。”
兴邦2004年试图在民政部门注册但没有成功,后于2005年5月完成工商注册,是一家集民间组织能力建设、创业技能培训、志愿服务、教育扶贫为一体的综合性民间非营利组织。目前兴邦主要的业务是三块:少数民族大学生小额助学借款项目(与多家机构合作)、 甘肃省民间组织能力建设系列培训项目(与米苏尔基金会合作)、大学生志愿者支教项目(与甘肃省少数民族文化教育促进会合作)。
加拿大基金是兴邦的合作伙伴,尽管整体上国际资金逐步退出,但和兴邦合作却基本上保持持续。小额信贷开始是与香港一家机构合作的,因为资金来源不稳定,兴邦目前正在将其本土化。兴邦2010年获得了招商局扶贫创新行动奖和壹基金的“潜力典范•创新奖”,所得奖金全部投入到整个项目之中。在甘肃本地,兴邦也在打算和一些企业建立长期联系,设立一个基金,目前尚未成功。获得壹基金的奖项后,一个后续的能力建设项目也在洽谈之中,今年中国扶贫基金会向地震灾区NGO提供的500万资助,他们也获得17万的项目经费。
摆生义说:“我们的宗旨是定了,服务领域定了,发展目标定了。我们希望米苏尔基金会这样的国际机构继续和我们合作,同时我们现在谋求多元化筹资,也并不局限于国际组织。”
对此,胡小军也回应说:“资金从来不是大的问题。随着国内非公募基金会的兴起,很多国内基金会开始支持草根NGO,这对草根NGO的发展亦是重要的战略机会。此外,雨田此前还和一些资助方是战略合作伙伴,这和被动地申请项目不一样。战略合作伙伴可以提出自己的想法,所以资金的问题还不是主要问题,最主要还是与人力和相关政策不明朗有关,如草根公益组织注册门槛的降低等。”
雨田主动停止运作的背后,除了低薪酬无法保障从业者的生活,政策环境也是一个重要的原因。某家国际机构是雨田重要的合作伙伴和资助方,该机构在昆明也设有办公室,而云南省对国际组织的管理规定要求不再给工商注册的组织资助。虽然目前在西北地区对此还没有明确规定,国际资助方对工商注册机构的支持在“打擦边球”,但整体趋势是,此类公益组织将受到越来越多的限制。
雨田、兴邦、绿驼铃无疑是甘肃草根组织中的佼佼者,还有一些机构因为无法注册和拿不到资助导致工作受限。甘肃另外一家环保组织表示筹款非常困难,甚至几千元的筹资都很艰难,长此以往,慢慢地激情就消解了。
成立于2005年的甘肃怡欣心理咨询中心最近两三年发展迅猛,成长很快。这家机构是以做灾后重建项目而为人所知,这次也获得了扶贫基金会的奖项。摆生义认为,以前国际基金会在草根组织的初创期会给予各种扶持,现在的基金会则以支持稳定的机构为主。新诞生的草根组织是否积极主动投项目书,策划能力强不强,都会决定其是否获得资助,对资助方来说,组织发展时间长短,有无执行和管理项目的经验,有无一定知名度,也是考量项目是否被批准的重要因素。
曾经的美好时光与衰落的原因
据推断,在最活跃的时候,甘肃草根组织有20~30家之多。那么这些组织是在什么背景下出生的呢?当地草根组织负责人说,一是当时的宏观政策比较宽松,政府鼓励支持多;二是国际发展机构通过国内合作伙伴在项目管理、筹资等能力建设方面的培训多,还有小项目的资助多等多方面的推动。
在摆生义看来,2003~2005年是甘肃NGO发展比较快的时期。一个很重要的原因是香港乐施会在甘肃开展的项目和活动比较多,这个时期甚至可以延伸到2007年,具体表现为国际NGO的会议多、培训多、小额资助多。尤其是能力建设多,激起了大家的热情。
兰州大学西部环境与社会发展中心主任丁文广分析,自2005年“颜色革命”后,一些发展领域的项目不再被鼓励实施,甚至被限制,但是以 “硬件”建设为主的社区发展项目,如农村基础设施建设、灾害管理、扶贫等是被鼓励的。导致甘肃有关部门对境外民间组织活动有了限制的原因源于两个方面,一是一些国际发展机构不了解中国的政策,做了一些“敏感”事情让政府不高兴;二是基层NGO不懂政府的管理程序,未按程序申报项目。丁文广认为,实施既让政府满意、又让社区高兴的项目比较好。
丁文广教授创建的“兰州大学西部环境与社会发展中心”经兰州大学批准,并在甘肃省民政厅成功注册了“甘肃省现代环境与社会发展研究中心”,属于民非。该中心致力于与政府机构、政府间组织、学术机构及国内外发展机构合作,在气候变化应对、社区综合发展、灾害管理、生态扶贫、环境教育和能力建设等方面实施具有挑战性的发展项目。一边挂靠大学的科研机构,一边是民政合法注册的组织,“两条腿”走路,比起草根组织生存环境更好些。
胡小军认为颜色革命并不是一个转折点,相反,甘肃民间组织发展比较快速的时期正好是在2005~2006年。一个标志是2005年在兰州大学召开“民间组织(NGO)发展与和谐社会研讨会”。这是一个大规模的研讨会,时任甘肃省民政厅民间组织管理局局长等领导都出席了会议。
2005年之前,大规模的能力建设没有在西部地区如陕西、甘肃等地进行过,2005~2006年得以推进的原因是,在甘肃和陕西有一些核心的推进机构,如陕西妇女研究会、兰州大学社区发展中心这样的组织。但后来兰大社区发展中心没能继续做下去,陕西妇女研究会只在陕西做,并没有和甘肃整合。另外,还有一个大的趋势是,由于2008年汶川大地震以后,救灾成为NGO工作的“主旋律”,很多项目被搁置了,资助方也侧重支持做NGO的联合的项目,对长期的能力建设的兴趣减弱了,形成了这种对能力建设低关注度的导向。
对未来新环境的几个担忧
几家甘肃的民间组织认为,现在对甘肃民间组织发育影响最大的还不在于国际资金的撤出。虽然有的资助方开始减少或者撤离,但是也有新的资助方在进入。例如香港某基金和一家GONGO合作,在甘肃成立办公室已经一年,而乐施会也在加大对西部的投入,其甘肃办公室还在招人扩编。况且现在资金来源多样化,这方面导致的影响不是很大。就甘肃而言,决定未来NGO发展的,还是政策和能力建设。
(1) 国内资助项目的问题
这几年迅猛发展的国内基金会势如破竹,甘肃等地发育较好的组织也已在承接国内新资源。一个多次获得国内奖项的机构的经验是,国内基金会的项目招标和国际基金会一样,如果项目是解决当地需求的,预算合理,有完整的逻辑框架,无论国内和国际基金会一般都会看中的。
但是,怎么评估项目是否合适,国内基金会和国外基金会做法就显示出差异来。一位草根组织负责人说,国际资助方一般是先做实地调查,充分讨论,如果让草根组织开始写项目书,申请就成功了60%,国际资助方甚至会参与和帮助修改项目书,哪怕几万元的项目也要实地考察。这样前期评估做的扎实,舍得花钱,也许项目书不漂亮,但是资助方仍能发现真正有价值的项目。
而国内基金会不一样。前不久中国扶贫基金会以招投标方式对灾区投放的500万资助,有的项目预算高达40~50万(最后消减了预算),扶贫基金会的做法是经过项目书的筛选,最后集中到某个地方,经过一番答辩就算过关了,这么大的项目不需要资助方亲自到项目点去实地考察。
另外的一个问题是,丁文广认为,这几年国内发展机构的资源发生了结构性变化,本土资源所占比例显著提高,但本土基金会,尤其是非公募基金会大多是企业家创办的,这些机构资助实施的项目与企业家的个人爱好相关,并没有真正关注西部最需要什么。国内相当一部分NGO组织的评奖活动中,得奖者以部分大城市的NGO居多,反映了评奖的公正性和透明度还有待于进一步提高。二是国内NGO普遍缺乏高素质的项目官员,三是项目的系统性和可持续性不强,这几年进步大不大。
结语
国际发展产业在华20年,正是由于他们的资助而滋生了一批民间组织。但丁文广认为,在甘肃,由政府主导的社会组织将越来越多,国际机构支持的草根组织将越来越少。当下国际资源与国内资源出现更替的趋势,公益领域力量格局发生变化,是到了该好好总结过往20年里中国民间组织成败得失的时候了。

CDB Editor  

Translated by Jessica Teets

Reviewed by Josh Friedman

No related content found.

Share: