In Cameroon, local and national NGOs are forming networks to increase their influence and redefine their relationships with international donors. However, this dynamic, which brings credibility, efficiency and professionalism, is viewed with suspicion by the administrative authorities and is not always well understood by the actors themselves. In his research, Léopold Ngueuta Nouffeussie, PhD in political science, lecturer and researcher in the Department of Political Science at the University of Maroua, member of the Les Afriques dans le Monde (LAM, Science Po Bordeaux) laboratory and the Canadian Association of African Studies (CAAS), analyses these groupings, which are shaping the contours of a new humanitarian geography.
How does the development of humanitarian networks in Cameroon play a role in humanitarian transition?
Léopold Ngueuta Nouffeussie : Since the World Summit in Istanbul in 2016, the humanitarian sector has committed to providing increasingly localized responses to crises and the needs of populations. In reality, the promised change has not really taken place, with trust between donors and local actors still lacking. Almost 10 years on, the humanitarian sector remains divided between the centre (North) and a periphery (South) that remains structurally dependent. North/South relations, which were expected to evolve, remain static. On the other hand, we have seen a reconfiguration, even a metamorphosis, of civil society actors and local organisations that are working to break free from the shackles of dependency.
One of the most important elements of this transformation is their grouping into networks, alliances, forums or platforms, based on common interests, values, beliefs, cultures, behaviours and objectives. National and transnational civil society organisation (CSO) networks are increasingly and successfully claiming their autonomy or even true sovereignty. These CSOs, which are members of alliances, negotiate among themselves and exchange resources and best practices through a process of intermediation and interaction of material and immaterial flows that are creating a new humanitarian geography.
Can you give us some examples of how these networks have developed?
LNN : Some networks have developed at the national level. For example, the Observatory of Public Freedoms in Cameroon (OLPC), an organisation created in 2020, which records all reported violations of freedoms in the country, brings together more than 300 member associations. The Federation of Women’s Associations Networks in Cameroon (FERAFCAM) brings together organisations working to promote the image of women, their access to training and their participation in public life. It is present in Cameroon’s 360 districts, 58 departments and 10 regions. The Cameroonian Humanitarian Organisations Initiative (CHOI), with its 300 organisations, was also created in 2018 to improve the humanitarian response through capacity building, visibility and advocacy for national and local NGOs.
Other networks are forming around common regional issues, particularly around the Lake Chad Basin (LCB) and in a transnational approach to security issues. These include platforms of national CSOs from Cameroon, Chad, Niger and Nigeria operating in the LCB. Southern NGOs have therefore realised that they are fragile and have little influence. Joining forces gives them credibility, solidarity and negotiating power, particularly when dealing with international NGOs.
What is the problem with these humanitarian networks?
LNN : The initial aim of our study was to understand the mechanisms that contribute to the establishment of these platforms and, ultimately, to analyse the driving force behind the creation of these new links between actors in the South. It is clear that these networks are likely to create a more favourable balance of power for NGOs in the South, laying the foundations for more respectful cooperation with donors. They are also the result of technological developments that enable instantaneous and intensified exchanges. In other words, they are shaping a new humanitarian geography that simply must be taken into account. Despite this, administrative authorities seem reluctant to embrace these groupings. It could even be said that they are obstructing the implementation of this new humanitarian geography.
Why does the State have a conflictual relationship with the networks?
LNN : Local NGOs are perceived as relays for international NGOs. Let us not forget that the latter promote certain values: democracy, respect for minorities, gender equality, etc. Victims of false accusations, NGOs are suspected of wanting to destabilise the country, or even accused of illegal financing, money laundering and terrorist financing. By the end of 2024, some had been banned. Furthermore, when an operation is funded by international donors, it is automatically assumed that large sums of money have been exchanged. Some administrative authorities then demand their “share” in order to authorise or support the interventions. Administrative authorities must understand that the purpose of structuring networks is solely to professionalise and strengthen the credibility and effectiveness of NGOs in the South.
You also mention the shortcomings or weaknesses of the networks. Could you share your observations on this subject with us?
LNN : Civil society NGOs sometimes express unreasonable expectations of networks. They see them as a means of obtaining funding. However, this is absolutely not their role. Networks are tasked with strengthening the capacity of NGOs to take action through training, advice, experience sharing and information. They are facilitators. Furthermore, without a clear status, networks are unable to agree on mechanisms for funding, representation and governance. To put it simply, whoever pays the piper calls the tune. Finally, in these CSO platforms, the same organisations that take the lead have been at the helm for more than ten years in some cases.
Quels enseignements et quelles recommandations tirez-vous de vos travaux ?
LNN : This reflection, which is policy-oriented research, calls for a review of the 1990 law on freedom of association in Cameroon in order to give local NGO networks genuine status. The realities of 1990 are not those of 2025. The 1990 association software is completely obsolete. Technological developments change everything. And a law that is not adapted to the context creates more problems than solutions. Hence the concern about the necessary transition of platforms from a de facto to a de jure situation.
Networks contribute to the structuring of civil society. And civil society is becoming the fifth power in democracies. Educational efforts must be made to ensure that everyone understands the real value of networks. Their transformation into confederations, i.e. giving them real status, would benefit all stakeholders. Local NGOs would become even more effective and credible. Donors would benefit from more robust partners, while the state itself could assume its regulatory role within a clear legislative framework. As an interface between the state, donors and local NGO members, networks would help to mitigate excessive state involvement and limit the stranglehold of international organisations, which very often deal directly with local CSOs without going through the networks of which they are members.
