If we start from the idea that popular initiatives of international cooperation have never ceased to exist, we should consider the fact that the approved Belgian NGOs which are the legitimate actors in the area of Belgian public aid sprang from this breeding-ground for associations. It was there that they prepared for the battle ahead and experienced their first successes and disappointments. They tried to innovate, create and reinvent cooperation practices. Not to take account of the IPSIs under the pretext that they are “amateur” and are “sentimentally driven” would be to cut off this fertile breeding ground where new cooperation practices, new projects and new actors in the area could develop.

IPSIs, playing a complementary role to NGOs

The innovative strength of the IPSIs lies in their ability to take on board a problem identified by or with their Southern partners, a problem that has not been addressed – or not sufficiently addressed – by the projects and programmes of the accredited NGOs. If we ignore the IPSIs, we are ruling out both this innovative ability and ultimately the complementary role played by these structures in the area of international cooperation. Finally, the current context provides an important breeding ground for the renewal of citizen commitment to another far away. If we attack IPSIs, we are attacking a groundswell that goes far beyond the simple context of North/South cooperation.

The renewed interest in citizen and popular initiatives in favour of international solidarity is arising from the challenge that the very existence of these IPSIs is posing for the Belgian non-governmental cooperation model.  Liberal ideology and constant attacks on the state structures seem to be favouring an inexpensive do-it-yourself approach and an empowerment/promotion of private initiatives in the area of international cooperation and beyond. The constant attacks on the state structures referred to their way of life as well as the “obvious” need for austerity budget policies in this endless crisis period. Thus, the IPSIs are making us think about redefining the link between private initiative when it comes to international solidarity and the State, which until now focused on accreditation mechanisms.

Since the advent of NGOs in the field of Belgian international cooperation, and as a consequence, successive reforms of the co-financing and accreditation mechanisms, the model was based on a polarisation of non-governmental aid towards the State. The importance of public funds in the Belgian NGOs budgets (especially the French-speaking ones) is proof of the how important the co-financing mechanism is for the tip of the associative pyramid of international solidarity. Public recognition obtained when an NGO is accredited was the main agent of legitimisation of non-governmental action. The accreditation was not just a way of being identified as a partner of Belgian Development Aid but also authorises its holder to be considered as a professional player.  Aside from this accreditation there is no other way to operate. It is as if nowadays it is impossible to be a professional in the area of non-governmental aid without the accreditation which in itself is simply recognition by the government of the right to financing. So, a clear link has appeared between public financing, institutional recognition, public control and a level of professionalism.

Considering the IPSIs as case studies, they raise several questions and force us to redefine the implied lines of our non-governmental cooperation. Is the State (from the federal government to the federal agencies) the only agent of legitimisation of players in the field of non-governmental cooperation?

Can we be considered as aid professionals without the recognition or control of the powers that be? Shouldn’t civil society organisations try to become autonomous by defining their own criteria of professionalism and even setting up their own control mechanisms?