Decreasing budgets for peacebuilding across the Global North are forcing a rethinking of the field. Experts say that the dramatic cuts present significant risks, but also offer a window of opportunity for the industry to become more efficient and sustainable.
Senior staff at peacebuilding organizations agreed that reducing funding for peacebuilding would have clear adverse consequences for global stability and people in conflict areas. “In an age where conflict globally is increasing (…) when the human and financial tolls are really obvious and clear, cutting funding to support conflict resolution and peace efforts is a penny wise and a pound foolish,” said Mike Jobbins, Vice President of Global Affairs and Partnerships at Search for Common Ground. He added that while every government needs to make its own financial decisions, peacebuilding cuts are ultimately counterproductive. “This is a core capability. Undermining this core capability doesn’t benefit the long-term health that any society wishes for its children, or build the world you want children to live in,” he said.
Liz Hume, Executive Director of the Alliance for Peacebuilding, said that cuts by western governments and especially the United States have affected peacebuilding organizations negatively. “Many of our AfP members, their programming was, in some way, completely wiped out,” she said. Hume noted, however, that she had not seen any organizations fully shut down yet.
Hume added that current funding cuts come at a particularly bad time, pointing to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development data released in mid-April showing that official development assistance fell in 2024 – its first drop after five consecutive years of growth. This is happening at a time, she said, where global conflict resolution needs are greater than ever. “Violent conflict, violence, fragility, instability is at all-time, record-breaking levels,” she said.
Conflict resolution programming has shown itself to be cost-effective, argued Hume, referencing a December 2024 International Monetary Fund (IMF) report that found that returns on $1 spent on prevention range from $26 to $75 for countries that have not recently experienced violence, and up to $103 for countries that have.
Peacebuilding organizations, she said, will have to adapt to working with fewer staff, and weather funding instability by prioritizing support for local partners who already do most of the work on the ground. Conflict resolution groups may also have to be more strategic when choosing where to work. Hume said, “You can’t work all over the country, you might be working in the areas that are the most fragile and unstable and conflict-affected.”
Despite acknowledging the harm of the cuts, both Hume and Jobbins said that the current challenges present an opportunity to fundamentally reform the peacebuilding field and make it more sustainable. For too long, they admitted, the sector has overrelied on funding from western governments, which was always a risk. Now, there is an opportunity to seek more diverse funding elsewhere. In particular, the field might have the chance to channel direct donations by citizens, said Jobbins, in a way that allows for more efficient operations with fewer of the strings attached associated with public funding.
“If we’re less reliant on the USAIDs of the world, then maybe we have an opportunity for individuals, for all of us to step up to support with our own giving to produce a world that’s much more reflective of what we want to see, and also support organizations in a way that’s much more nimble, responsive, and mission-driven than those that are exclusively reliant on governmental funding,” he said.
According to Jobbins, there is now a chance for the field to focus on impact rather than simple outputs. “Ten smart dollars are worth more than forty dumb dollars,” he said. What is most important, he said, is that limited resources be channeled towards proven solutions, especially local staff working in multi-partial teams across entire conflict areas.
The sector also has to work harder to communicate results and demonstrate clarity about what does not work, said Hume, and results need to be published more consistently. Peacebuilders also need to more effectively make the case for their work, translating the complex language of programming in a way that builds a constituency for it. “It’s practical, it’s actionable. It is something you can measure,” said Hume.
Jobbins agreed. “Our sector has a good story to tell, because an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure,” he said.
When asked about the possibility of private funding supporting cash-strapped peacebuilding organizations, Hume said that while private funding will not be able to fill the fap left by Global North donors, there is a real need to tap into innovative funding, and make the case to corporate partners that conflict is a global destabilizing force with effects that go beyond a company’s bottom line in any one country.
Ultimately, said Hume, the changes ahead will be difficult yet necessary. According to her, the peacebuilding field should use this moment of flux to plan for the future and ensure the long-term survival of its work.
“Multiple things can be true at the same time: it can be disastrous or it can be an opportunity to reform.”
Keywords: peace, peacebuilding, budget cuts, development, aid, conflict, conflict resolution
