Why we fund organizations in Africa
by Noémie Bricard
Thank you to Lea Buck for your feedback!
We’re sometimes asked: why do you, as a German foundation, fund organizations in Africa rather than in Germany (to be precise, we don’t fund in Africa but in African countries that are classified in the low-income category)? Wouldn’t it make more sense to support organizations based in Germany? That’s a valid question – and one we’re happy to answer. Here’s how we think about it.
Our why & how
We believe each life has equal value and that not the randomness of where a child is born should decide their opportunities. That leads to a global responsibility to achieve this, and since we only have limited resources, it makes sense to spend them there where the need is highest and they can make the biggest difference. We’ve explained our approach in detail in Azurit’s very first blog article if you are interested to learn more.
We believe that philanthropy’s legitimacy is strongest when taking risks, being flexible and prioritising topics, geographies, and communities that have less access to funding. Philanthropy can cater to topics that are less accessible for markets and governments.
However, not every funder should do the same. It’s important to have a diverse and heterogeneous funding landscape. Some overarching principles, such as accountability, are relevant for all funders, but the respective strategies should mirror each funder’s unique objectives without one objective being superior to another one. This also means that funding within Germany remains highly relevant, and our reflections should not be understood in a prescriptive way.
What we often hear
“There are problems in Germany too. Why look elsewhere?”
Today, 700 million people live in extreme poverty worldwide (on less than $2.15 per day). In 1960, the GDP per person in Africa, adjusted for the different costs of goods in different places, was about half of the average in the rest of the world; today it is about a quarter. Poverty rates in low-income countries are higher than before the pandemic, and while low-income countries account for roughly 10% of the global population, they represent 50% of people living in poverty. The majority of people facing poverty quite simply do not live in Munich, Germany, where Azurit Foundation is based.
Let’s take education as an example – one of our key focus areas. Low-income countries spend USD 55 per learner annually, compared to USD 8,532 in high-income countries. In Germany, the education and vocational training sectors are relatively well-funded and structured. Public education funding in Germany was roughly €190 billion in 2024, accounting for 4.5% of Germany’s GDP. While big structural changes are needed, our 20k grant would be an even smaller drop in the ocean if spent in Germany.
In addition, we see highly imbalanced trade patterns, where African countries reap minimal benefits from the value-added processes and, due to that, are often net payers in global trade flows. This dynamic reflects deeply rooted global inequalities, from which countries like Germany continue to benefit. Addressing this requires strengthening local economies and communities – not only through investments, but also through supporting education and skills development. So, for us, it is part of a shared global responsibility.
“I would want to see the organizations in person.”
Site visits can make a lot of sense and physical proximity can build trust. For example, we work with local consultants that visit potential partners during our due diligence process (they see and find out things we probably wouldn’t). However, as a funder, one should have clarity on the why. Which added value is created through the physical proximity? Is it about personal connection? The comfort of familiarity? Or about control? It’s useful to be conscious of the underlying reasons.
It’s human nature to feel more connected to what’s close to us. But moral importance doesn’t scale with visibility. The fact that we can’t personally witness a challenge doesn’t make that challenge any less real or any less deserving of attention. Many German foundations fund not only within their country but only within their neighbourhood. As a result, relatively wealthy regions like Hamburg or Munich have a lot of philanthropy, while economically weaker regions, like Mecklenburg-Vorpommern or Brandenburg, have far fewer philanthropic stakeholders. This dynamic can be, at least to some extent, transferred to the international context.
We have regular calls with our partners to stay connected and up to date. Based on our yearly anonymous feedback, this creates working, trust-based relationships with our partners. Nevertheless, we are disconnected from the local realities. That is why we make sure that our partners have systems in place that enable them to know the impact they create in the communities they serve. That is also why we give flexible funding because we can’t know better than our partners where the funds can have the highest additionality in advancing their mission.
“It’s too risky”
As stated earlier, one thing that sets philanthropy apart from the state is that it can take higher risks. That makes risk one of the legitimizing factors of philanthropy. We see our role in de-risking early-stage organizations for bigger funders. Like everywhere else in the world, there are more and less trustworthy organizations in the countries in which we fund. We conduct thorough due diligence, assessing legal structures, leadership, finances, program design, and monitoring capacity.
Additionally, to label an entire continent of 54 countries and 1.5 billion people as “risky” is not only inaccurate but also harmful, as can be seen with the debt servicing fees. According to a study looking at bias towards developing countries by UNCTAD (2025), “subjective indicators, judgements, and sentiment play an important role in determining the rating opinions of rating agencies”, resulting in over $24 billion in excess interest and more than $46 billion in forgone lending – far more than the $42 billion in Official Development Assistance (ODA) to Africa in 2024 – and in over 40% of African countries allocating more funds to debt service than to health.
“It perpetuates a broken global development system”
“Historically, philanthropy was an extension of imperialism” being used “as a tool for exploitation and control” says Stephen Caleb Opuni and adds, “trends suggest that by 2045, 85% of the world’s poorest billion people will be in Africa. If philanthropy is to have any significant impact on reversing this trend, it needs to be rooted in empowering Africans as the engineers of change.” Genuine global redistribution of funds from the Global North to African engineers of change can be seen as one way of taking responsibility for past exploitation.
Aid dependency is real, and there are local voices who oppose aid and philanthropy altogether, advocating instead for investment-based approaches. However, not every solution lends itself to an investment model. Especially in our focus area of education, we believe that not all efforts can – or should – be geared towards profit. We see grants as essential where financial return on investment isn’t the right lens to achieve impact.
Another dynamic we’ve observed is that some people avoid funding initiatives in the Global South altogether out of fear of making mistakes or being considered white saviors. Besides, an improved development system can only be created by people from the Global North and South together. Juxtaposing funding in the Global South and “changing the system” is a false contradiction. People in the Global North sitting together and deciding that it is best to not fund in low-income countries to not perpetuate a system might reproduce the exact dynamic they want to prevent.
There are few local funding opportunities in low-income countries, and we want to support and spotlight African-led organizations until they are better resourced and recognized by the broader funding ecosystem. Rather than pulling back, we want to change the how together with our partners. Our approach is based on flexible funding, close partnerships and anonymous feedback. New partners are recommended by local experts and half of our board is based in the countries we fund, and we are striving to increase that.
A continent of opportunity
Africa holds 65% of the world’s uncultivated arable land (World Economic Forum 2023). Ten of the eighteen countries with over 90% renewables in their electricity mix in 2023 were African countries (Our World in Data, 2024). The median age in Africa was 19.2 years in 2024, meaning that half of the population was younger. In Africa, half of the population will reach working age in the next 20 years. Compare this to a median age of 45.5 years in Germany. There is strong leapfrogging potential: LIC can, for example, skip centralized, fossil fuel–based energy systems and move straight to decentralized, renewable energy solutions like solar, wind, or mini-grids. Philanthropy can contribute to settings in which this potential can be leveraged. If all of this were commonly known, our geographic focus might surprise fewer people.
Final thoughts
We don’t pretend to have all the answers. If we learn new things that shift our understanding of where we can have the most impact, we’ll adapt and re-evaluate our focus. For now, this is where we believe our resources go furthest. If you do find yourself asking the same questions we asked – about global inequality, resource gaps, and philanthropic leverage – we invite you to join us.
