ISF’s funding, where are you headed?

The funding of non-governmental organizations has been a contentious issue during the current government term. Initially, the government program announced cuts amounting to hundreds of millions in development cooperation and funding for social and health organizations. In 2024, cuts to funding from three different ministries followed, impacting especially the smaller actors within the NGO sector.

The financial outlook for NGOs during the current government term has raised concerns about the future of civil society organizations. Although International Solidarity Foundation is in a better position than many organizations, with its program funding expected to remain intact through the end of the current program period in 2025, the long-term prospects are uncertain. 

Each budget round seems to further tighten the financial constraints on development cooperation funding. Initially, cuts outlined in the government program targeted mainly bilateral state development cooperation, followed by funding for other NGOs. Now, in the autumn 2024 budget session, an additional 135 million euros was slashed from various areas. Furthermore, last spring’s budget framework review cut an additional 85 million euros from development cooperation funds for 2025 and 2026, though it remains unclear where exactly these cuts will fall. 

It’s fair to say that the level and fate of program funding for 2026–2029 are currently speculative. 

For ISF, this means it must increasingly seek funding from other sources to reduce reliance on single funders and ensure continuity in its work. To this end, ISF hired Alex Masitsa last year, a dedicated specialist focused on diversifying its funding base. His role is to identify and apply for new funding sources. 

“The funding landscape across Africa is clearly shifting. For example, the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has seen significant cuts to next year’s budget. It also appears that corporate-backed and ideological foundations are becoming more prominent as funders alongside traditional state and supranational donors — with foundations like those of Toyota and Mastercard as examples,” Masitsa explains. 

Fortunately, ISF is not solely dependent on Ministry of Foreign Affairs funding. 

Approximately one-third of its income comes from private donors. Additionally, ISF has received funding for its work from the UN Trust Fund and the European Union. Building and strengthening relationships with such funders is central to Masitsa’s work. 

“While ISF does remarkable, well-regarded work in its countries of operation, it’s not well-known enough, for example, among major donors in Nairobi. We have consciously focused on strengthening our presence in the regions where we operate. For instance, ISF is well-known in Kenya’s Kisii region and generally in Somaliland. My job is to bring that impact and recognition to the attention of decision-makers in larger centers,” Masitsa says. 

“This means actively building relationships and identifying suitable funders. But it also means finding the right partners and connections, as many larger funding opportunities now prioritize consortia that bring together multiple actors to create broader networks.” 

Masitsa considers ISF’s situation and prospects to be at least reasonably good. 

“As mentioned, we need to strengthen our visibility. But we have solid references: last year, we started our first EU project, which has gone smoothly and delivered the desired impact. Successfully managed projects and donor relationships can lead to additional opportunities,” he continues. 

“ISF also offers the kind of social and economic impact that funders seek. Our focus on preventing violence and economically empowering women provides the kind of comprehensive, long-term solutions that some funders are looking for.” 

However, raising funds is not easy, and the changing funding environment complicates operations for many organizations. In Finland, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ cancellation of three separate grants has weakened the funding base for several Finnish NGOs. For example, peace organizations lost all their funding, and most recently, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ended the communication and global education (CGE) support, at least for this government term. 

“Overall, it strongly appears that the funding shift for NGOs is being driven more by a stick than a carrot. NGO funding often comes from various small streams, and private fundraising is unlikely to cover the funding gap for all organizations dropped from public funding,” says Sini Santasalo, ISF’s Head of Fundraising. 

“At worst, we may see a survival-of-the-fittest scenario, where the best campaign-oriented organizations can somewhat ensure their viability, and some organizations may be forced to scale down operations. You could say that civil society is now being thrown into the market, where only the best-equipped will survive,” Santasalo adds. 

Alex Masitsa also views the lack of long-term funding as a challenge. 

“Although every organization’s purpose and mission drive its operations, the logic of operations is also heavily shaped by funders’ needs. In practice, you must align the mission with the ability to implement it. But if, for example, states and international organizations now cut their funding to civil society, this could force some organizations into a challenging transition towards new operational models or even eliminate the foundation for their work,” Masitsa observes. 

According to studies commissioned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the support it provides to NGOs has been effective: it has extended Finnish presence, enabled connections with local civil society, and shown a favorable cost-benefit ratio. NGOs have not only been an expense but also an extension of Finnish foreign and trade policy. Without long-term funding, this connection could be lost. 

“But even if long-term funding from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs hopefully continues, ISF’s strategic goal is still to diversify its funding base. This approach provides good risk management and simultaneously allows for expansion into new areas,” says Masitsa. 

“However, this won’t succeed without a lot of legwork, but that’s what I’m here for,” Masitsa laughs. 

“If we are to make female genital mutilation a thing of the past by 2030, then work to end violence and mutilation against women urgently needs more funding, coordination, and collaboration. Current measures are simply not enough to meet the need and build a movement that can end mutilation.”