Funding Policy
Who We Fund
We fund qualified individuals, organisations and institutions doing cutting-edge research and reflective practice in conflict studies. On a carefully calculated basis, we take risks to fund projects that otherwise have difficulty acquiring financial support.
In selecting potential candidates, we look for those with a clear capacity to produce innovative research results of the highest quality, delivered in a timely fashion. To ensure this, the Foundation reserves the right to conduct due diligence and may contact candidates at any stage of the application process.
We tend to favour small-scale projects with the potential to create a broad impact. But we also expect budget submissions to be realistic and manageable in terms of project completion. Application for the one-time renewal of a previously successful proposal is encouraged only on a restricted basis.
Once a grant has been awarded, we reach agreement with recipients about monitoring their progress and reporting on the outcomes of their project. While we respect the independence and competence of our grantees, we seek to be rigorous and demanding in the achievement of mutually-agreed goals. This is one way to guarantee the excellence and quality of the projects we support.
There are no geographical limitations to foundation interests, provided projects reflect our philanthropic aims and objectives, meet our funding criteria and follow our application procedures.
TopThematic Interests
As a funder, the three thematic interests described below permit us to take a more concentrated approach to what we see as key strategic issues emerging in the field of conflict transformation.
By focusing on these areas, we wish to support action research and reflective practice that identifies and elaborates fresh, creative paradigms for inclusive and integrated approaches that can enhance this field.
These three themes are integral to structural peacebuilding processes, particularly the continued need to extend and develop multi-track approaches to conflict transformation. All are inter-related and mutually reinforcing, thus lending greater coherence to our philanthropic interests.
While the first bears on overall societal transformation after armed conflict, the second takes an inclusive look at the roles and interests of non-state armed groups and the third looks at changing patterns in state and non-state actor constellations.
- Peacebuilding and reconciliation in post-war societies
A fundamental linkage in peacebuilding and peacemaking relates to reconciliation, specifically the need to integrate legacies of past violence into the construction of a new peaceful future. This remains an essential topic for conflict transformation.
However, it has not been sufficiently addressed in many post-war contexts and still represents a painful obstacle for sustainable progress towards positive peace.
Thus, scholars and practitioners in the field of conflict transformation require a better understanding of interim top-down and bottom-up reconciliation measures in phases between ceasefires and political settlements, as well as in cases where political settlements are not based on adequate social consensus.
They must also better understand the interaction between concrete steps to end wars (e.g., ceasefire agreements, amnesties, security guarantees for military leaders) on the one hand, and the upholding of human rights and principles of transitional justice on the other.
These different perspectives can clash in the short term— even if in the long term there will be no just peace without respect for human rights and some kind of transitional justice.
- Transformation processes of non-state armed groups into political actors
Non-state armed groups are a long neglected area of interest in conflict transformation. Until recently, this area tended to be dominated by more traditional academic disciplines like security studies, terrorism studies or international relations.
However, there is an urgent need to shape a new discourse about non-state armed groups, especially as this can be informed and defined by the guiding principles of conflict transformation.
Armed resistance and liberation movements are key stakeholders in many contemporary violent political conflicts and often represent the interests of large segments of civil society. They can no longer simply be treated as spoilers— to be fought, isolated and eliminated wherever and whenever possible. Nor can they be dismissed or disregarded because they have no official status or legitimacy.
Creating lasting peace settlements requires their active involvement and cooperative engagement. These groups must themselves also be capable of constructive participation.
As such, it is necessary to better understand the internal and external factors that lead non-state armed groups to make transitions from violence to politics.
- Interactions between state and non-state actors in conflict transformation processes
This relates to one of the most fundamental questions in conflict transformation: How to effectively design and implement sustainable multi-track peace processes?
It also derives from critical reflection on current debates about fragile states and the legitimacy of external interventions to restore functioning statehood in such contexts. However, the legal, territorial and structural competency of traditional nation states faces increasing challenges— not least because of the predominant transnational dimension of asymmetric (state/non-state) conflict formations.
In terms of the interactions between state and non-state actors, there is a continued need for multi-dimensional approaches that bridge gaps between official peace efforts and civil society, as well as across related spheres of activity; e.g. human rights, legal processes and reforms, development cooperation, humanitarian relief, security sector reform and so on. Moreover, these processes of transition and transformation are not linear, but unfold in uneven and disjunctive ways over time.
It is therefore necessary to further explore how best to facilitate and enable these multiple, uneven and complex sets of horizontal and vertical relationships in more effective ways. Two specific areas of focus define the scope of our interest in relation to this daunting task: 1) elaboration of systemic approaches to conflict transformation; 2) elaboration of Track 1.5 activities.
TopGrant Statistics
There is no minimum grant request. Awards range from several hundred euro for very small projects, up to a maximum of €50,000.00 for one year on larger-scale projects.
For projects lasting more than one year, we also accept requests for a total funding limit of €100,000.00. The maximum duration of such projects is two years.
Top