Explore the urgent need for sustained funding in conflict-affected areas to support peacebuilding efforts and shift power dynamics in global civil society.
Written by Rebecca Freeth and Michelle Parlevliet
We are living in a world experiencing the highest levels of violent conflict since World War 2. According to a study by World Vision, by 2030, more than half the world's poor will be living in countries characterised by fragility, conflict, and violence.
Children and youth account for two-thirds of the people who are often hit the hardest, with women representing a majority in most regions. While much attention is currently commanded by what’s going on in the Palestinian territories, Israel, the wider Middle East and Ukraine, violent conflict is ongoing in multiple other places.
Yet, in the face of escalating levels of violent conflict, there has been a steady decline in funding for peacebuilding over recent years. For example, earlier this year, Germany announced an austerity-driven 30% cut to its international “crisis prevention, stabilisation, and peacebuilding” budget. In 2023, Sweden cut its peacebuilding funding by almost 40%, affecting civil society organisations and communities across the globe.
We face a disturbing paradox. As fragility and conflict grow globally, funding is being reduced—at least among most of the traditional Official Development Assistance (ODA) grantmakers. Organisations with strong track records in peacebuilding, violence prevention, and conflict mediation are struggling to support local partners and offer services where they are sorely needed.
An alternative funding approach
So, the cases that appear to buck this trend are worth noting. One such instance is when the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) issued a call for proposals in late 2023, inviting grant applications from non-profit organisations in the peacebuilding and conflict mediation sector. This MFA funding is focused on building peaceful, just and inclusive societies in fragile and conflict-affected states such as Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Eastern DRC, Iraq, Yemen, Mali, Niger, Uganda, the Palestinian Territories, Sudan, Somalia, Tunisia, and South Sudan.
This call was noteworthy because it:
• Represented a significant pot of funding to be shared between a relatively small number (maximum 10) of successful applicant organisations
• Initiated an 8-year funding cycle, which means that successful applicants would be able to sustain a consistent programme of work until 2031
• Placed a strong emphasis on reflection, learning and adaptive programming at the country and regional levels, and promotes learning across different contexts.
• Demonstrated trust in the applicants’ expertise and track record by asking them to design a programme at the outcome level. No country-specific programming was required, nor was an activity plan or a logframe, to encourage adaptive programming and management.
In other words, these are relatively large and long-term funding parcels, disbursed to highly experienced organisations with strong track records and capacity to innovate practice and contribute to regional and international policy dialogue. All in the context of an ongoing learning relationship with the funder.
The Dutch MFA changed its approach in this domain after commissioning an evaluation of its contribution to stability, security and the rule of law in fragile and conflict-affected areas, including as a funder. The evaluation report, Inconvenient Realities, acknowledged contributions to some positive results but also clearly outlined the need to change current practices to be more pragmatic and effective, observing limitations to the malleability of society in fragile and conflict-affected areas and a persistent gap between policy ambitions and the sphere of influence.
Why it matters
Like many other organisations working in conflict-affected areas, we have found that the conventional approach to funding — which can be characterised as short-term and project-based by design — is unable to adequately address what is really needed in these settings, where complexity, uncertainty, and volatility are prevalent. A bolder funding strategy is required.
Reos Partners is working with leaders in many parts of the world, including civil society leaders in Sudan and Somalia in the Horn of Africa, using transformative scenarios exercises to imagine alternative futures. Transformative scenarios bring together a diverse set of influential people affected by fragility or conflict to collectively construct a set of plausible stories about their future. These stories not only help to adapt in the face of fragility and conflict but also to exercise collective influence and shift future trajectories.
Reos is fortunate to work alongside organisations like Conciliation Resources, which conducts peacebuilding work in fragile regions of the world in partnership with local activists and organisations. Peacebuilding is a long-term process that aims not only to stop violence and resolve conflicts but also to support local actors in building societies, institutions, policies, and relationships that are better able to sustain peace and justice.
This is a good example of the kind of work that benefits from sustained funding, which enables making longer-term commitments to the necessarily slow pace of co-creating conditions for peace to flourish. Jonathan Cohen, Executive Director of Conciliation Resources, says there is a need for more flexible and unrestricted funding that enables organisations to respond to developments in contexts, both opportunities and risks.
“Unrestricted funds enable organisations like ours to take the necessary risks needed to get peace initiatives up and running in conflict-affected areas. [Restricted] funding limits what organisations are able to do because it is often ‘stop-start’ and this undermines the types of relationships we are able to sustain, and the kind of approaches we can undertake for peacebuilding.”
Jonathan adds that the pool of donors who have historically provided unrestricted funding is shrinking.
“That puts a lot of our work at peril,” he explains. “We have a lot of really good projects on our books, but because restricted grants often don’t fully pay for themselves, we can’t always afford to keep doing them. Our staff are at risk of getting burned out because they’re running projects, navigating complex politics, raising money for new projects, and meeting ever-increasing compliance demands from donors. Somewhere along the line, it doesn’t add up.” Jonathan clarifies further, “Restricted funding is critical, but it can’t meet the range of challenges we face in fluid contexts without unrestricted funding to fill the gaps”.
Lack of unrestricted funding also negatively impacts local partner organisations in fragile regions that co-design and implement peacebuilding work with Conciliation Resources, often over sustained periods of time.
Shifting the power
There is a bigger story here about shifting power in the dynamic between funders and organisations delivering services in global civil society. The RINGO Lab (Re-imagining International Non-Governmental Organisations) is a systems change initiative to shift power and transform practices in global civil society. Reos has been RINGO's design and facilitation partner since its inception in 2021. In a recent blog, RINGO co-founder Deborah Doane from Rights CoLab noted that:
“Current [funding] practice in civil society remains both top-down and patronising: assuming that those in Europe or the US know best, making decisions, drip-feeding project-based, short-term funding, and cementing the state of long-term dependence. As funders and civil society profess the desire to do more to localise, shift power and decolonise, however, letting go of power is the much-needed step in the chain that will make a significant difference.”
Peace Direct, a long-term RINGO Lab member and initiator of an exciting RINGO innovation now maturing into the Decolonising Advisory Community, points out that there is a step to take before being able to let go of power:
“The way we talk, the way we fund, and the way we fundraise all need to change – yet this can only happen if we acknowledge the problem [of colonial legacies and structural racism] exists.”
A solid start, but it's not enough
The idea that funding should be provided on a longer-term basis has been around for quite some time in the peacebuilding field. However, in practice, even when longer-term funding is granted, it is often disbursed in short-term packages, which can disrupt the focus and flow of peacebuilding services.
Reos’ work is all about supporting diverse stakeholders to collaborate across divergence and disagreement towards deep systemic change for more peaceful, just and sustainable outcomes. Whether working on projects in the RINGO Lab, with Conciliation Resources, or in the Horn of Africa, we have seen what kinds of possibilities are unleashed when funders understand the need for longer-term grants, are able to be bolder, dare to let go of outdated approaches to compliance and share the risks associated with this kind of work in meaningful partnership.
Taking bolder and more adaptive approaches to funding in fragile and conflict-affected areas requires some honest reflection. But what does that look like?
It means:
• commissioning evaluations to find out which funding strategies are really working and which are not,
• trying out alternative approaches and adapting accordingly,
• listening to grantees’ feedback about restricted funding,
• prioritising local ownership and context-specificity,
• and it means taking more risks as grantmakers instead of displacing risk onto grantees.
The Netherlands’ MFA’s recent funding call is evidence of an unflinching look in that mirror and a commitment to change. It’s a ray of light in a world that can surely use it these days.
Embarking on a systems change journey? We welcome a conversation with you!
