Disrupt & Innovate

The decisions of the new US administration to freeze aid and abolish USAID has sent shockwaves through the system. USA is the largest bilateral ODA (Official Development Assistance) donor, and this decision is already having significant impact, both within the US (job losses, cutback on domestic programs) and abroad (communities not receiving medical aid, local NGOs having to cease operations, fragile and poor countries expecting significant economic impact). 

Other donors have taken similar steps – the Netherlands has cut aid by 30%, redirecting funds to projects that directly contribute to Dutch interests. Belgium cut aid by 25%, while France reduced its budget by 37%. Swedish SIDA has linked its foreign aid strategy closer to Swedish interests and prohibits the use of their funding for political advocacy in ODA countries. Most recently, the UK has decided to reduce foreign aid by 40% while raising defense spending. Germany’s new government might be next in line, having to raise military spending significantly and possibly preparing financially for larger numbers of Ukrainian refugees. 

Linking aid cuts to increasing military funding is only one, yet problematic, relationship. We can also see the increasing instrumentalization of foreign aid to security, external policy, and economic interests of donor countries. Furthermore, the ‘value-based’ or ‘rights-based’ development cooperation is under direct attack by those who are propagating a regressive and chauvinistic world view, in which NGOs and civil society are seen as principal opponents. 

Acknowledging that the victims of these developments will be first and foremost the poorest and most vulnerable of this world, we also need to understand the long-term impact on the ‘sector’. What do these developments mean for civil society, and for ICSOs in particular? 

Five weeks after the first Executive Orders by President Trump, some consequences can already be drawn. 

• It can safely be assumed that globally, there will be less foreign aid available for a long time to come. 

• Aid will be more closely linked to geopolitics, global trade relations, security concerns and few immediate global threats (though the latter might be questionable, thinking of the ambivalent actions towards pandemics). Climate change and biodiversity loss might receive even less attention.  

• Aid might be ‘regionalised’, for example, focused on immediate spheres of influence of big donor countries (e.g. US aid may be focused on Central America)  

• Aid might be focused on alleviating humanitarian crises, particularly high-profile ones.  

• Institutions (the UN, other multilaterals, but also NGOs) will be in defence over their value, legitimacy, effectiveness and the difference they make. 

• The ‘localisation’ agenda might get new, unexpected pushes in the direction of cost cutting, local ownership and local financing / fundraising.  

• Recipient countries might take this as a call for greater self-sustainability (positive scenario) or leave the most vulnerable communities behind (negative scenario). 

(I)CSOs are in the middle of this. The values on which their work rests are under attack. As institutions they might be singled out by anti-rights actors. Their business models are threatened, particularly those NGOs who take significant government funding. And the legitimacy of international actors is under scrutiny, from many sides. The push to ‘localise’ and shift power comes from Southern civil society, and Southern and Northern governments alike.    

‘Disrupt and innovate,’ has been the slogan of the Centre since its inception. When there’s disruption, and resilience is low, things will have to change. It is clear that there are some fundamental shortcomings in the sector, in spite of the many good deeds that have been delivered through the aid system  for the time it has been existing. Here are some ideas on how to make use of the crisis. 

• Aid flows from North to South increase (or perpetuate) dependency. Can there be more radical support to those who want to overcome such dependency, e.g. through supporting local fundraising, transferring power of decision-making in project planning, positively sanctioning self-funded initiatives, investing in institution building, creating solidarity funds? 

• (I)NGOs have an overriding concern for their organisational success. Can they develop the ambition (and practice) to work themselves out of the job? What would this mean for defining leaders’ success? 

• Accountability over funds is the holy grail for those who don’t want to shift decision powers. Can we prioritise non-monetary accountability dimensions? And can we lobby donors to adjust their expectations? 

• There is duplication throughout the sector. Should there not be many more mergers, job-share, cross-sectoral collaboration? Can we be more rigorous about added value provided? 

• Social business, social impact investing, effective philanthropy, must not be seen as distinguished from CSO work. Are we intentional enough about such initiatives, and about bringing corporates into our ecosystem? 

• The international aid system is expensive. Country office structures and expats living and working in the global South are costly, they narrow development spaces for local talents, and undermine just tax systems. Can we work more with local staff capacities and service providers? 

• In many cases, partners are implementers or sub-contractors. How do partnership relations be re-defined and re-lived to change who is in the drivers’ seat? 

• There’s been more and more calls for system changes, to bring the sector from its head onto its feet. Will leaders (and governors) of civil society organisations take this as a positive challenge? And do they believe in the quest for a change of the international aid system? 

The above are just a few areas where more serious discussion and actions are needed. The sector has already developed several promising initiatives, like RINGO, the Pledge for Change, and the Dynamic Accountability Framework, which may need a significant push for commitment. What could other areas be where leaders in the sector invest collectively, to make good use of the crisis at hand? 

Let us know! 

• civic space
• Civil Society
• International Civil Society Centre

Wolfgang Jamann

Executive Director

International Civil Society Centre

Dr. Wolfgang Jamann is Executive Director of the International Civil Society Centre. Until January 2018 he was Secretary General and CEO of CARE International (Geneva). Before that he led NGO Deutsche Welthungerhilfe and the Alliance 2015, a partnership of 7 European aid organisations. From 2004-2009 he was CEO & Board member of CARE Deutschland-Luxemburg and President of the CARE Foundation. Previously, he worked for World Vision International as a regional representative in East Africa (Kenya) & Head of Humanitarian Assistance at WV Germany. After his Ph.D. dissertation in 1990 he started his career in development work at the German Foundation for International Development, later for the UNDP in Zambia. As a researcher and academic, he has published books and articles on East & Southeast Asia contributing to international studies on complex humanitarian emergencies and conflict management.

In early February, we were invited to facilitate a foresight workshop in Budapest, Hungary, as part of a study session on “New Trends in International Voluntary Service” (IVS). Organised by the Coordinating Committee for International Voluntary Service (CCIVS), the Alliance of European Voluntary Service Organisations, International Cultural Youth Exchange (ICYE), Service Civil International (SCI), and the Network for Voluntary Development in Asia (NVDA), in collaboration with the Council of Europe, the study session aimed to explore emerging trends in IVS and strengthen participants’ ability to anticipate and respond to future challenges in volunteering and youth work.

A group of 30 young professionals from around the world, representing international voluntary networks and organisations, gathered at the European Youth Centre in Budapest to explore the future of international volunteering through the lens of futures thinking. While this methodology was new to many participants, it was embraced with great interest and enthusiasm. The Centre’s experience with futures thinking, particularly through our “Scanning the Horizon” community and the “Anticipating futures for civil society operating space” initiative, provided a solid foundation for guiding participants in applying foresight tools to their own contexts.

Exploring Trends Shaping the Future of Volunteering 

The study session was guided by our “Toolkit for tomorrow: Anticipating civil society futures,” a resource we designed to help (international) civil society organisations strengthen their ability to anticipate future challenges, practice foresight, and build resilience. Through group discussions, participants explored key trends likely to shape IVS over the next decade, such as decolonisation, climate injustice, artificial intelligence, and the rise of new social movements. The importance of thinking ahead was central to the event, as one participant noted: 

“We should already start planning based on future trends and not only focus on the current ones.”

To dive deeper into how these trends might impact the future, the participants were tasked with narrowing down a long list of trends to two key issues that they believed would most significantly influence IVS by 2035. Their choices were: 

• Climate injustice – Ongoing environmental degradation, extreme weather events, and resource insecurity will disproportionately affect certain regions and vulnerable groups, exacerbating existing inequalities. 

• Voluntourism demands – Volunteers prioritising personal travel experiences over genuine contributions to community work will shape the future of volunteering. 

Crafting Scenarios for 2035: From Volun-Caring to Volun-Collapse 

Creating future scenarios allows organisations to step beyond current assumptions and envision a wide range of possible outcomes, helping them prepare for uncertainty and make more proactive decisions. In the workshop, participants used a 2×2 matrix, a widely-used scenario-building tool, to explore how two key trends – voluntourism demands and climate injustice from a decolonial perspective – could unfold by 2035. By examining the interplay between high and low impacts of these trends, they developed four distinct scenarios for IVS: 

The crafted scenarios provided vivid insights into where volunteering could be headed, depending on how these trends play out. They encouraged participants to reflect on how these futures might be similar or different from today. As one participant put it: 

“Considering different possible futures could actually show us how close we are to some of them.”

Shaping the Future: Taking Action 

The scenario workshop sparked great enthusiasm, and many participants expressed a desire to continue exploring and applying futures thinking in their own organisations and community work. The session inspired participants to think about the future in new ways, question their assumptions and biases, and embrace diverse experience and perspectives when imagining futures. As one participant reflected: 

“There is hope to solve the upcoming problems. Through discussions and different points of view, we can get concrete ideas about future opportunities.” 

The following day, the group brainstormed actions that IVS organisations could take to address the challenges and opportunities identified in the scenarios. They discussed ideas such as partnering with educational institutions and humanitarian organisations, learning from grassroots social movements, embracing social entrepreneurship, and decentralising structures. A follow-up session will take place in a few months to assess how these ideas have evolved into concrete projects. 

Embracing Futures Thinking 

Overall, the workshop underscored the value of futures thinking in helping to anticipate potential challenges and opportunities, empowering people to make better decisions today. Participants left with a deeper understanding of their own agency in navigating undesired futures and working towards preferred outcomes. As political theorist John Schaar once said:

“The future is not some place we are going to, but one we are creating.”

Inspired to Explore Futures Thinking for Yourself?

If you’re interested in learning more about how to apply futures thinking, check out our “Toolkit for tomorrow: Anticipating civil society futures.” This step-by-step guide takes readers through trend scanning, scenario building, and action planning. Originally published in English, the toolkit is now also available in French and Spanish. 

Feel free to get in touch to explore ways we can collaborate on futures thinking. 

Photos by Tavares Ferreira, Youth Department of the Council of Europe

• civic space
• Civil Society
• Foresight
• Futures
• Solidarity Action Network (SANE)

Eva Gondor

Senior Project Manager

International Civil Society Centre

Eva leads on the Centre's civic space work - the Solidarity Action Network (SANE) aimed at strengthening resilience of and solidarity among civil society actors, and the International Civic Forum (ICF), our annual civic space platform to network and identify opportunities for collaboration. Prior to joining the Centre she worked at the Robert Bosch Stiftung (Foundation) in Stuttgart where she managed the foundation’s projects focusing on civil society and governance in Turkey, the Western Balkans, and North Africa.

Earlier this month, our Director of Programmes, Rachel Wilkinson, was invited to speak to EU policy makers to share the Centre’s work on strategic foresight, signals and trends. The European Strategy and Policy Analysis System (ESPAS) is an inter-institutional collaboration among the officials of the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council of the EU, and the European External Action Service, with the support of the Committee of the Regions and of the European Economic and Social Committee. It monitors global trends and offers strategic foresight to the EU’s decision-makers. The meeting saw policy makers from across all EU institutions come together and learn about trends and discuss their possible implications.

The value of futures thinking  

Futures thinking can help us navigate uncertainty by revealing the interplay of dynamic trends, identifying risks, opportunities, and innovations, and creating a collective vision for the future. At the Centre, we have been promoting futures thinking to civil society organisations for many years. Scanning the Horizon is our established collaborative platform for trend scouting and analysis in the international civil society sector. It includes leading ICSOs, national CSO umbrella organisations, philanthropy, and futurists. Members utilise futures skills and methods to shape and adapt their strategies. From this community and other programmatic work on futures thinking, such as our toolkit for tomorrow, we have developed futures resources to support civil society. 

It is important for civil society to have a voice and be included in conversations with policy makers. At the Centre, we bring forward different perspectives and can share a global view of trends and signals. At the gathering of ESPAS, we had a unique opportunity to share our approach on futures thinking and the methods we use to develop futures thinking resources, such as trends mapping and signal spotting, through which we seek diverse inputs and ask critical questions to challenging our assumptions about the signals and trends we see emerging. 

Taking a participatory approach to futures thinking  

We take a participatory approach to our futures thinking. This allows for more inclusive and transformative futures to emerge, enabling out-of-the-box thinking with diverse input building upon our past experiences. By seeking a broader range of opinions and situations from a global perspective, we enable more inclusive and transformative futures to emerge. For policymakers, these wider perspectives ensure the implications on civil society organisations are better understood and more robust and future-proof policies are developed. 

Trends and Signals  

Our recent work highlights several key trends impacting the civic space. This includes Mis, Dis, and Mal information: AI-driven manipulation, erosion of trust in public institutions, and the rise of opinion engineering through social media. These trends can harm trust, democracy, and social cohesion, and CSOs need tools and strategies to address mitigating these effects. 

Our work on anticipating futures examined trends on civic space. Key trends in this area are the increase in global conflicts, crises of multilateralism, tech solutionism, the influence of corporations, securitisation, disinformation, demographic shifts, growing inequalities, and climate injustice. All these interlinking and overarching themes need to be addressed to strengthen civic space. How we react to these challenges is vital for maintaining social stability, promoting human rights, and upholding the rule of law within the EU and globally. 

CSOs and Futures Thinking 

For more information about our futures work and that of the ESPAS please see:  

• ESPAS (external website homepage)  
• Toolkit for Tomorrow: Anticipating Civil Society Futures (toolkit) – Now also available to download in French and Spanish.  
• Insights and Foresights: Learnings on mis-, dis-, and malinformation (resource collection)  

• Futures
• Scanning the Horizon

Rachel Wilkinson

Programme Manager – Futures and Innovation

International Civil Society Centre

Rachel leads the Futures and Innovation programme at the Centre. She is responsible for managing the portfolio of projects and events as well as leading and developing the Scanning the Horizon strategic peer learning platform. Rachel has more than 15 years of experience working in the third sector, on a national and international level, working for various ICSOs in international development and human rights in both London and Berlin.