"Not many foundations enter war zones."

Faced with the growing number of crises and conflicts around the world, Boris Martin, a specialist in humanitarian action and editor-in-chief of the publication Humanitarian Alternatives, shares his expert view on philanthropic organisations' place and role in war zones.

What are the specific features of operations in war zones, particularly compared with emergency operations following natural disasters?

When a natural disaster occurs, the prevailing feeling isa sense of unavoidable tragedy, leading to unanimous compassion. As a result, internal emergency services are mobilised, and external emergency services are generally welcome. Increasingly, however, the authorities in the countries concerned are asserting their "humanitarian" sovereignty and refusing international aid. Despite this, responding to so-called natural disasters is less complex from a political, logistical and security viewpoint.

In conflict zones, there is already a political stake: armed conflict is a sign of failure. Responding in this kind of context is therefore extremely sensitive. Any action can be interpreted as support for one side or the other: if you respond in Ukraine, you're against Russia; if you respond in Gaza, you're against Israel, and so on.

Then there's the question of the security of response actions, which requires strict protocols and ongoing risk assessment. You also need to be very flexible, as the situation can change rapidly and unpredictably. Lastly, access to those in need is often restricted or dangerous. The needs are also more complex, encompassing psychosocial support and rebuilding social wellbeing.

All this requires the organisations involved to have extensive experience and skills that are specific to the situation.  This is true of non-governmental organisations and United Nations agencies. They are subject to fundamental humanitarian principles and their legitimacy is recognised by most states around the world. Unfortunately, this doesn't prevent certain states or armed groups from discrediting them, exploiting them or even targeting them. This growing hostility towards them further contributes to making foundations that want to get involved even more cautious: if NGOs themselves are already the target of public or physical attacks, you can imagine that foundations' work would be criticised or suspected, with potentially harmful consequences for them and their teams.

How can foundations consider their involvement in such contexts?

Not many foundations enter war zones. Nevertheless, they can respond indirectly in several ways: firstly, by favouring partnerships with well-established and recognised local organisations. In particular, they can help build local partners' capabilities in terms of security and risk management. They also need to adopt more flexible decision-making and funding processes to respond quickly to changing situations, and their monitoring and evaluation systems need to be tailored to the constraints on the ground. In all cases, it's important for them to act in accordance with fundamental humanitarian principles to avoid endangering themselves or disrupting the global humanitarian ecosystem.

Among the foundations involved in conflict zones are the network of foundations launched by George Soros, Open Society Foundations, and Fondation de France, which has been working for two years to help people affected by the war in Ukraine. There is also the Ukraine Solidarity Foundation, set up by Fondation de Luxembourg to provide emergency support to victims of the war in Ukraine and neighbouring areas, and Fondation Pierre Fabre, which has helped to set up a centre to care for victims of sexual violence in South Kivu, in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The country has been in a state of almost permanent war for years, with ongoing instability giving rise to a huge amount of sexual violence, including mass rape.

How is foundations' work interlinked with the work of humanitarian organisations?

Foundations and traditional humanitarian actors work in a complementary way. Foundations can provide financial support that is more flexible and longer-term than traditional institutional support. In this sense, they meet NGOs' needs to obtain more funding in increasingly demanding and underfunded contexts. Foundations can also focus on complementary areas such as bolstering local capabilities or supporting innovation. They can also act as intermediaries between different stakeholders such as NGOs and local authorities.

What are the specifics of the involvement in Ukraine?

The first thing to remember is that Ukraine isn't a "failed" state. Before the war, it had an organised healthcare system and a strong civil society, with associations often set up as early as 2014. It's a country at war, where the health and social system is holding up well. As a result, foundations and international NGOs often support existing structures. 

Secondly, this is an international armed conflict between two states, not a civil war. I say this because it makes it easier for foundations to provide support: they don't find themselves in the middle of hostile forces within the country itself, with alliances that are formed and broken from one day to the next. But it also means that due to the patriotic momentum, an entire society is united against a common enemy, Russia. This means that foreign foundations involved in one way or another must choose their partners carefully and be able to impose their conditions. For example, by demanding fair treatment of populations, regardless of their real or supposed "preferences", whether pro-Russian or pro-Ukrainian.

What role can foundations play in post-war reconstruction?

This is undoubtedly the phase during which we expect the most from foundations, along with the one preceding war: foundations such as George Soros' are working hard to help structure civil societies or even public institutions to prevent countries from sliding into conflict. When, unfortunately, the threat materializes, and apart from what can be done "during the war", we generally see greater involvement by foundations during the reconstruction phase: security risks are reduced and the emphasis can be placed on long-term development (education, health, governance, economic recovery).

Foundations also often play a catalytic role, attracting other funding and promoting innovative approaches, whether in terms of technologies or democratic consultation processes, for example. Lastly, they can focus on aspects neglected by major reconstruction programmes, such as cultural heritage and psychosocial support. Reconstruction is often a "blind spot" in aid programmes: the states concerned are very weak, NGOs have no expertise in this area and the costs are staggering. We therefore welcome the support of foundations, as long as they operate in a true spirit of philanthropy and in compliance with the ethical codes that NGOs are increasingly developing to govern their relations with private players.

Photo credit: Boris Martin © D.R.

TO FIND OUT MORE

→ Solidarity with Ukraine: two years of action