War has cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars in the 21st century. Yet philanthropic grants for peace and security accounted for just $351 million in the most recent tally, less than 1 percent of giving by private foundations.
To put that figure in perspective, Michael Bloomberg in November gave five times that amount to his alma mater, the Johns Hopkins University. It’s a minuscule sum to address a vast array of global challenges, which include nuclear disarmament, cybersecurity, and peace building in conflict zones, among other things. Not to mention the host of other challenges that stem from war, such as mass human-rights abuses and the world’s unprecedented refugee crisis.
This imbalance is not due to bad intentions — the barriers to entry for philanthropists are formidable. When it comes to matters of war and peace, no grant maker wants to risk making things worse. It is right that “do no harm” is the first principle to be considered, but too often this translates into “do nothing at all.” Part of the problem is that conflict prevention and other areas of peace building are notoriously hard to quantify.
A Hard Sell
In the age of “philanthrocapitalism,” foundations have increasingly turned to approaches borrowed from the business world, which emphasize data-driven solutions and impact measurement. That’s relatively easy to do in areas like global health, but it can be nearly impossible to prove or measure conflict prevention.
Even in disciplines that are more conducive to an empirical approach — such as accountability and transitional justice — the case is often abstract. Exhaustive evidence collection for potential future criminal prosecution is immensely important to justice, reconciliation, and prevention, but these efforts take years of slow, meticulous work for outcomes that are at best uncertain.
It is much harder to sell this kind of ambiguous “cause and effect” than it is with, for example, the prevention of disease through higher vaccination rates. Nonprofits working to advance peace can no doubt do better when it comes to describing the impact of their work, but grant makers must become more tolerant of longer time periods for measuring impact. And they would do well to take to heart the maxim that “not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.”
Complex Issue
The sheer complexity of modern conflict exacerbates the challenge. Eighty percent of the U.N. Security Council’s agenda deals with intrastate conflict rather than conflict between states, which the system was designed to address. But despite this, philanthropy is well placed to act as a bulwark against the fickle priorities of governments.
Take Syria, where funding for civil-society groups and other entities has dropped off a cliff over the past year as the conflict has drifted down the international priority list. This is precisely where philanthropic support could send a powerful message and make a real difference.
Instead, some of the most devastating global conflicts are virtually ignored by philanthropy. In nearly four years of conflict in Yemen, thousands have been killed, three-quarters of the population is in need of aid, and 8.4 million people are at risk of famine.
Yet the philanthropic response has been confined to a handful of humanitarian grants. Every dollar counts, but private donations currently account for just 0.2 percent of the Yemen humanitarian response plan.
This is philanthropy on the margins, when there are bold efforts that need support — for example, work to bolster the peace process, such as by providing better assistance to marginalized groups in the southern part of the country, and ensuring broader inclusion of civil-society voices in the process, particularly women and youths.
These are the elements needed to secure a just and durable peace.
Symptoms, Not Causes
The Rohingya crisis paints a similar picture of need ignored. In August 2017, the long-simmering government persecution of the Rohingya minority in Myanmar exploded into a full-blown disaster. Systematic attacks against the Rohingya civilian population resulted in horrific violence and a refugee crisis where hundreds of thousands fled to camps in Bangladesh.
The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum has found compelling evidence that the Burmese military’s actions constituted genocide. But the philanthropic response was limited to a handful of organizations that had already been active on the issue for years.
No one can say for sure whether early investment in preventing conflicts would have made a difference, but it’s worth devoting greater resources to relatively cheap ways to get involved, even when an outcome cannot be guaranteed. Philanthropic support could have made a meaningful contribution in a range of areas — such as helping to elevate Rohingya voices in policy making circles, sounding the alarm about the use of technology to stoke violence, or providing support for accountability measures to act as a future deterrent.
The limited funding that does make its way to conflict zones is often confined to tackling symptoms rather than dealing with the issues causing the conflict.
In 2017, Sesame Workshop and the International Rescue Committee were worthy winners of the MacArthur Foundation’s inaugural 100&Change grant of $100 million to support education for children displaced by conflict in Syria. But the appetite to make big bets on the symptoms of conflict should be matched by early action to tackle root causes.
By failing to support such efforts, foundations risk undermining their own work in conflict-affected areas. Because war is so costly both in human and financial terms, the potential return on investment for conflict prevention is enormous.
Speed and Risk-Taking
Much is made of philanthropy’s ability to move quickly and take risks. At Independent Diplomat, we’ve worked on many fast-developing conflicts such as in Myanmar, Syria, and Yemen, and we can say that in conflict settings, the rhetoric doesn’t always match the reality.
In light of the complexity and scale of conflict today, foundations must do a better job of working together. This would provide strength in numbers and allow groups to share costs, due diligence, and expertise, as well as spread the burden of risk. Donor collaboratives are increasingly talked about in philanthropic circles, but they are still rare. A recent study by the Hauser Institute found that most grant makers don’t coordinate with their peers.
Niche Projects
Still, there are good philanthropic models to consider. Foundations could provide formal structure for collaboration by establishing a philanthropic fund for peace building. On climate change, umbrella groups such as the ClimateWorks Foundation and European Climate Foundation are already pooling resources to good effect. The Freedom Fund to address modern slavery provides another instructive example. And the Co-Impact Fund — established by philanthropists including Jeff Skoll and Bill and Melinda Gates — offers a great model of how collaborative, “big bet” philanthropy is operating in other areas to achieve systemic change.
Already many foundations are doing great work and sophisticated strategic thinking about ways to advance peace. The Peace and Security Funders Group and its members, for example, are part of a robust conversation about how to maximize the impact of their grant making, and the Open Society Foundations has demonstrated a deep commitment to dealing with root causes, even when doing so may be riskier than more superficial approaches.
But as things stand, they are part of a relatively niche and isolated field of philanthropy. Many other donors have concluded that conflict funding is simply too daunting.
Establishing a new fund would allow small foundations to get involved and also provide a mechanism for big players to contribute without deviating from their missions.
An organization like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation might reasonably argue that it is most effective when it concentrates on global health and development. But war is a fundamental threat to those efforts, and a peace-building fund would represent a logical investment to help protect hard-earned progress.
While there are many issues worthy of greater philanthropic support, peace is unique in that it lies at the heart of so many other global challenges. Action to acknowledge that fact would help transform the effectiveness of philanthropy aimed at curbing conflict. More important, it would transform the entire global development field in areas ranging from health and education to agriculture and economic development.
Nick Scott is associate director for external relations at Independent Diplomat, a nonprofit advisory organization that works with governments and democratic groups around the world.
