.
From the ongoing conflicts in Syria, Somalia, and South Sudan to the horrors committed by ISIL, we live in a world that is seemingly rife with violence and instability. What we don’t see often enough is another truth: today’s world is also filled with incredible stories of resilience that arc toward a more peaceful and stable world. This is why the Peace and Security Funders Group (PSFG) set out to showcase this incredible and impactful work.
On April 5, PSFG launched the Peace & Security Funding Index: An Analysis of Global Foundation Grantmaking, a first-of-its-kind research project that showcases the foundations and philanthropists dedicated to building a safer, more peaceful and prosperous global future. These funders are investing in efforts to prevent, mitigate, and resolve conflict, and to rebuild after conflict. From research on preventing nuclear terrorism to funding locally-led efforts at preventing mass atrocities and genocide, peace and security funders are supporting peace, justice, diplomacy, and dialogue in a variety of ways. In 2013, these 288 foundations supported over 1,200 organizations with more than $283 million spread across nearly 2,000 grants.
We undertook this project to better understand who is active in peace and security funding and how that funding is being distributed. What we found is truly encouraging: foundations engage in peace and security funding at every level of giving. While the top 15 peace and security funders provided two-thirds of the $283 million awarded in 2013, the vast majority of foundations engaged at far more modest levels. In fact, 70 percent of funders made peace and security grants of less than $250,000, while well over one-third (37 percent) gave less than $50,000.
This is important because funders with whom I’ve spoken about investing in this field oftentimes feel discouraged that peace and security challenges are too large and that their funding is too small to make a difference. Yet, despite making up less than one percent of global philanthropic giving, peace and security funders at all levels are having an impact. Let’s consider two case studies: the Iran nuclear agreement and the peace talks in Colombia.
The 2015 Iran nuclear agreement was an historic diplomatic success that increased American security and may have even helped avoid yet another war in the Middle East. For five years, peace and security funder Ploughshares Fund was quietly supporting these efforts. Beginning in 2010, Ploughshares wired a network of nuclear experts, advocates, and media specialists who would collaborate to support the Iran nuclear negotiations and, eventually, the final agreement. Ploughshares made grants to experts to assess the situation and provide solutions; to grassroots mobilizers to increase understanding and support in Congress; and to media experts to talk about the issue in a way that both ordinary citizens and policymakers could understand.
The Obama administration, its negotiating partners and champions on Capitol Hill made this policy goal a reality. Civil society also played its part. By spending years and $12 million in grants dollars laying the groundwork, Ploughshares Fund was a recognized leader of outside efforts to build political space needed for the Iran nuclear agreement to succeed.
A second example is the peace talks in Colombia. In December of 2015, as part of its attempt to negotiate the end of 50 years of armed conflict, the Government of Colombia and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) announced a comprehensive agreement on compensation for victims. The Institute for Integrated Transitions (IFIT), founded in 2012 with seed funding from the Compton Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, among others, participated in each part of the talks, as well as in the government delegation’s major strategy and drafting meetings. IFIT's advice directly shaped the contents of the final accord, which include a special court, truth commission, missing persons unit, reparations package, and integrated set of rules on how each of these mechanisms relates to the other.
You don’t have to be a billionaire to make a big difference in this field; there are lots of opportunities for engagement.
One specific area of opportunity is in conflict prevention, which comprises just six percent of peace and security funding. We all know the famous saying, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” So, why is there so little money in this area?
I surveyed PSFG’s Conflict and Atrocities Prevention Working Group for responses to this question. This group of funders has a wealth of knowledge about this space and why it may be underfunded (despite the fact that prevention has been found to be 50 to 100 times more effective than trying to deal with existing armed conflict).
First, crises present such an immediate and overwhelming need for resources that it may be a stronger pull for a lot of donors, says Sally Smith, co-chair of the Working Group and founding Executive Director of The Nexus Fund. Milt Lauenstein, an individual philanthropist member of PSFG, agrees: wars are in the news and people want to be identified with places that are recognized.
Second, according to both Yifat Susskind, Executive Director of MADRE and co-chair of PSFG’s Women, Peace and Security Working Group, and Andreas Hipple, Senior Program Officer at GHR Foundation and PSFG Steering Committee member, the challenge of funding conflict prevention is – in part – a function of funders’ preoccupation with “measurable outcomes” and a more general tendency to discount things that don’t happen. Because the goal of conflict prevention is essentially to generate a negative – the absence of conflict – proving this counterfactual is nearly impossible. It’s also difficult to attribute a lack of violence to any one program or policy, much less measure or evaluate that absence.
Language is another challenge. Many funders don’t identify as “peace and security” funders, though their funding fits squarely within this space. With prevention specifically, some peace and security funders don’t consider their programs – like education, media training, civil society support, migration/integration, de-radicalization, confidence building – to fall into “conflict prevention,” though all these efforts get at root causes of conflict and contribute to stable, prosperous, and peaceful societies.
Finally, effective conflict prevention is often about building systems (e.g., of effective government that can deal with grievance, or the rule of law to prevent those in power from acting with impunity toward opposition). When done right, this invariably takes a long time and must be a shared investment that can’t be delivered by any single funder. Collaboration is key and collaboration is difficult. Additionally, funders in this space must commit to multi-year funding and staying the course over years, if not decades. The pay-off is incredible – like, for example, the greatest peace deal in recent history – but funders can’t be in it for a quick fix.
Part of the remedy in funding conflict prevention specifically and peace and security generally, lies in shifting the frame from “preventing conflict” to “generating peace.” And this is exactly what the Institute for Economics and Peace is trying to establish with its Positive Peace Index. Challenges of monitoring and evaluation, language, visibility of a crisis versus conflict prevention, language, and commitment will no doubt remain, but we won’t have to work our way out of the paradox of assessing a negative if we focus on what makes peace possible. Reframing peace in this way will also allow the peace and security funding community to welcome more funders into our small-but-mighty ranks. And god only knows there’s plenty to do!
About the author: Alexandra Toma is Executive Director of the Peace and Security Funders Group, a growing network of foundations and philanthropists committed to promoting international peace and security. In 2011, Alex was named a “Top 99 Under 33” by Diplomatic Courier and Young Professionals in Foreign Policy.
The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.
a global affairs media network
Peace and Security Philanthropy: Opportunities for All
Watercolor world map illustration with different beautiful colors
June 29, 2016
From the ongoing conflicts in Syria, Somalia, and South Sudan to the horrors committed by ISIL, we live in a world that is seemingly rife with violence and instability. What we don’t see often enough is another truth: today’s world is also filled with incredible stories of resilience that arc toward a more peaceful and stable world. This is why the Peace and Security Funders Group (PSFG) set out to showcase this incredible and impactful work.
On April 5, PSFG launched the Peace & Security Funding Index: An Analysis of Global Foundation Grantmaking, a first-of-its-kind research project that showcases the foundations and philanthropists dedicated to building a safer, more peaceful and prosperous global future. These funders are investing in efforts to prevent, mitigate, and resolve conflict, and to rebuild after conflict. From research on preventing nuclear terrorism to funding locally-led efforts at preventing mass atrocities and genocide, peace and security funders are supporting peace, justice, diplomacy, and dialogue in a variety of ways. In 2013, these 288 foundations supported over 1,200 organizations with more than $283 million spread across nearly 2,000 grants.
We undertook this project to better understand who is active in peace and security funding and how that funding is being distributed. What we found is truly encouraging: foundations engage in peace and security funding at every level of giving. While the top 15 peace and security funders provided two-thirds of the $283 million awarded in 2013, the vast majority of foundations engaged at far more modest levels. In fact, 70 percent of funders made peace and security grants of less than $250,000, while well over one-third (37 percent) gave less than $50,000.
This is important because funders with whom I’ve spoken about investing in this field oftentimes feel discouraged that peace and security challenges are too large and that their funding is too small to make a difference. Yet, despite making up less than one percent of global philanthropic giving, peace and security funders at all levels are having an impact. Let’s consider two case studies: the Iran nuclear agreement and the peace talks in Colombia.
The 2015 Iran nuclear agreement was an historic diplomatic success that increased American security and may have even helped avoid yet another war in the Middle East. For five years, peace and security funder Ploughshares Fund was quietly supporting these efforts. Beginning in 2010, Ploughshares wired a network of nuclear experts, advocates, and media specialists who would collaborate to support the Iran nuclear negotiations and, eventually, the final agreement. Ploughshares made grants to experts to assess the situation and provide solutions; to grassroots mobilizers to increase understanding and support in Congress; and to media experts to talk about the issue in a way that both ordinary citizens and policymakers could understand.
The Obama administration, its negotiating partners and champions on Capitol Hill made this policy goal a reality. Civil society also played its part. By spending years and $12 million in grants dollars laying the groundwork, Ploughshares Fund was a recognized leader of outside efforts to build political space needed for the Iran nuclear agreement to succeed.
A second example is the peace talks in Colombia. In December of 2015, as part of its attempt to negotiate the end of 50 years of armed conflict, the Government of Colombia and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) announced a comprehensive agreement on compensation for victims. The Institute for Integrated Transitions (IFIT), founded in 2012 with seed funding from the Compton Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, among others, participated in each part of the talks, as well as in the government delegation’s major strategy and drafting meetings. IFIT's advice directly shaped the contents of the final accord, which include a special court, truth commission, missing persons unit, reparations package, and integrated set of rules on how each of these mechanisms relates to the other.
You don’t have to be a billionaire to make a big difference in this field; there are lots of opportunities for engagement.
One specific area of opportunity is in conflict prevention, which comprises just six percent of peace and security funding. We all know the famous saying, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” So, why is there so little money in this area?
I surveyed PSFG’s Conflict and Atrocities Prevention Working Group for responses to this question. This group of funders has a wealth of knowledge about this space and why it may be underfunded (despite the fact that prevention has been found to be 50 to 100 times more effective than trying to deal with existing armed conflict).
First, crises present such an immediate and overwhelming need for resources that it may be a stronger pull for a lot of donors, says Sally Smith, co-chair of the Working Group and founding Executive Director of The Nexus Fund. Milt Lauenstein, an individual philanthropist member of PSFG, agrees: wars are in the news and people want to be identified with places that are recognized.
Second, according to both Yifat Susskind, Executive Director of MADRE and co-chair of PSFG’s Women, Peace and Security Working Group, and Andreas Hipple, Senior Program Officer at GHR Foundation and PSFG Steering Committee member, the challenge of funding conflict prevention is – in part – a function of funders’ preoccupation with “measurable outcomes” and a more general tendency to discount things that don’t happen. Because the goal of conflict prevention is essentially to generate a negative – the absence of conflict – proving this counterfactual is nearly impossible. It’s also difficult to attribute a lack of violence to any one program or policy, much less measure or evaluate that absence.
Language is another challenge. Many funders don’t identify as “peace and security” funders, though their funding fits squarely within this space. With prevention specifically, some peace and security funders don’t consider their programs – like education, media training, civil society support, migration/integration, de-radicalization, confidence building – to fall into “conflict prevention,” though all these efforts get at root causes of conflict and contribute to stable, prosperous, and peaceful societies.
Finally, effective conflict prevention is often about building systems (e.g., of effective government that can deal with grievance, or the rule of law to prevent those in power from acting with impunity toward opposition). When done right, this invariably takes a long time and must be a shared investment that can’t be delivered by any single funder. Collaboration is key and collaboration is difficult. Additionally, funders in this space must commit to multi-year funding and staying the course over years, if not decades. The pay-off is incredible – like, for example, the greatest peace deal in recent history – but funders can’t be in it for a quick fix.
Part of the remedy in funding conflict prevention specifically and peace and security generally, lies in shifting the frame from “preventing conflict” to “generating peace.” And this is exactly what the Institute for Economics and Peace is trying to establish with its Positive Peace Index. Challenges of monitoring and evaluation, language, visibility of a crisis versus conflict prevention, language, and commitment will no doubt remain, but we won’t have to work our way out of the paradox of assessing a negative if we focus on what makes peace possible. Reframing peace in this way will also allow the peace and security funding community to welcome more funders into our small-but-mighty ranks. And god only knows there’s plenty to do!
About the author: Alexandra Toma is Executive Director of the Peace and Security Funders Group, a growing network of foundations and philanthropists committed to promoting international peace and security. In 2011, Alex was named a “Top 99 Under 33” by Diplomatic Courier and Young Professionals in Foreign Policy.
The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.
