Research into the international development sector and its effectiveness by the H & S Davidson Trust points to a flawed system badly in need of reform. In this series of interviews, we talk to figures in the sector in order to get their views on how we can co-create the narrative of the system we want and how we obtain it. In this interview, Andrew Milner talks to Stella Voutta at Robert Bosch Stiftung.

Dr. Stella Voutta. Director, Peace and Strategic Partnerships, Robert Bosch Stiftung

Andrew Milner: To set the scene, can you tell me a little bit about what you do at Bosch Stiftung?

SV: I’ve been working for the Robert Bosch Stiftung since 2009 on different regions and in different positions. In 2020, I took over the responsibility for the “Peace” portfolio and since August of this year, I’m also the director of the Strategic Partnerships team in the foundation.

And that crosses over with the peace work presumably?

Yes, as with all of our international topics. The team existed before, but it has now been integrated into our ‘Global Issues’ area of engagement. We are currently in the process of determining how our existing partnerships can better align with the topics within the Global Issues department.

Just to clarify, Bosch does work worldwide, doesn’t it? It’s not just European. 

Exactly. We are Germany-based, we don’t have any offices anywhere abroad, but we work globally.

In terms of your work, what do you see as the most urgent challenges besetting the philanthropy sector? Are they external ones or more internal ones?

I believe it’s both. From a peacebuilding perspective, and more broadly, the number of conflicts and crises is rising, and they’re increasingly interconnected. This means that our funding practices need to adapt to respond to the growing number and speed of crises. At the same time, we as philanthropic foundations need to reflect on our role. We must evaluate in which cases we are the right decision-makers and when and how we can and should shift more power to local actors.

It is so important for the field to have intermediaries which also share the values of local ownership and shifting power

Currently, I’m especially concerned about shrinking budgets for peacebuilding and development, which is evident in Germany and other European countries. Although the Robert Bosch Stiftung is financially independent from government funding, the partners we work with are not and they are also embedded in an ecosystem that often relies on government funding. With the overall funding cake getting smaller, it’s critical to recalibrate our role and use our resources more effectively in this changing landscape.

Let me ask about shifting power to local actors because it’s central to what we’re trying to do with this initiative. How do you go about that?

For us, working on the peace issue, localisation really is the tool that we apply to respond to its challenges.  We think, for example, that making local peace actors the key decision-makers in peacebuilding work makes a more sustainable and lasting peace much more likely. In the end, this might reduce the number of conflicts, making peacebuilding more effective and efficient.

Greater collaboration is essential. Truly working together across different agencies and partners, both locally and internationally, would really enhance impact.

Can you tell me how you implement that approach?

As a foundation, we’ve been engaged in peace and security since the beginning of our international work, initially under the broader theme of ‘International Understanding’. In 2017, we formally introduced peace as a dedicated topic, starting with some classical conflict transformation approaches. Following a comprehensive strategic review, during which we consulted experts worldwide, we concluded that supporting local peace actors should be central to our work. Today, we focus on directly supporting locally-led peacebuilding in three regions: the Middle East, the Western Balkans, and West Africa. Additionally, we work at the level of the international peacebuilding system, supporting initiatives that aim to reimagine and reform it to better serve local peace actors.

How do you decide which partners to support in those regions and how do you support them?

One of the challenges that we faced when we started implementing our approach was finding the right partners—or making it possible for them to find us—which has been a significant learning experience. Honestly, when we decided on this strategy in 2020, I didn’t fully grasp the extent of the transformation we were embarking on. Having started in philanthropy in 2009, having managed grants and finding partners for more than a decade, I thought I had a good handle on it. But I soon realised that our new focus on locally-led peacebuilding  required me to rethink almost everything I was doing at the foundation.

Partner identification varies by region. In the Western Balkans, we had an established history and existing contacts. However, the Sahel was entirely new to us, and it took more than two years to identify suitable local partners. We collaborated with consultants, ideally local ones, who guided us on regional focus, mapped potential partners, and connected us with organisations. These organisations, in turn, conducted workshops with other local entities, gradually helping us build our network.

For the international aspect of our work, we usually proactively reach out to organisations that are leading in locally led peacebuilding and that we hear about from our existing networks, ensuring that we connect with partners who are truly at the forefront of this field. Partners which challenge the field and ourselves.

So one strand of the work feeds into the other in that you get to know contacts through working in the international scene?

Absolutely, yes.

And how do those two marry up? What are the connections between the, if you like, the infrastructure building for peace and then the very local work?

I’m sometimes asked if one is more important than the other, but both are crucial. It’s vital to support local peace actors directly and use the insights gained to inform our work on the international level. We aim to address concrete conflicts while also taking a systems-thinking approach to identify barriers in the international system. By targeting these barriers, particularly in Germany, we can create benefits not just in specific contexts but worldwide. Also, the system will not change just because of us. The field needs more donors who are ready to advance their work in a truly localised way. Therefore, having both work streams is essential.

With the local organisations, do you very consciously let them set the agenda for what they’re going to do?

Yes, we aim to give as much decision-making power as possible to local organisations. We recognise that the true experts are those on the ground who experience conflict first hand, but implementing that is not without challenges. We have learned that while it is important to continuously work towards local leadership, it’s essential to be transparent about limitations from the outset, as some legal restrictions and foundation statutes for example define what we can fund.

The implementation of our approach came at the same time as a shift in our entire foundation towards more participatory, demand-driven, and trust-based approaches. Our grants management team, for example, is always thinking together with us how we can make processes more accessible and less burdensome for our partners.

I’m interested very much in the nuts and bolts of this. Is there a typical process? How often are you in touch with the partners, and how do you go about forming the relationship in the first place?

Our approach is flexible and varies by region. Initially, we had a concrete model for working across regions, but we found that adapting to partners’ specific needs was more successful. We communicate frequently and we have also changed our practice from them submitting written reports to having conversations where we take notes or joint learning workshops. While we aim for regular contact, it depends on how well we know the partners and regional circumstances. Building trust is fundamental, and it requires a tailored approach for each relationship.

So your approach has to be completely flexibly. You can’t go in with a set of protocols, it’s on an individual basis?

Exactly.

The Reform in Development initiative who have commissioned this series of interviews  have come up with what they’re calling four pathways, one of which you’ve talked about – the role of INGOs and localising funds. What about the money you give them? Are you consciously using more unrestricted funding, giving the money to strengthen the organisation rather than for this or that particular project?

Yes, we are increasingly providing unrestricted funding, recognising that it’s essential for organisations in conflict-affected areas. While there are limits and there are certainly still circumstances where we collaborate in classical projects, we strive to offer long-term, flexible support with the resources that we have available. Looking back at 2009, we really have come a long way in adjusting our practices. The support of organisational development is another example of this, where we have evolved significantly.

We’ve talked about some of the problems of identifying partners in the first place and then some of the constraints you have as an organisation. What are the other main challenges that you find using this approach?

It requires a mindset shift, and it took much strength to push against established practices in the sector that focused on quick, tangible projects. It was really important not to give way to this pressure and say, ‘never mind, I’ll go the easy route and fund the usual six international partners just to have my list of projects’. While I was really convinced from the beginning that supporting local actors was the right thing to do, it was really a challenge to change the practice and my own thinking. Leaving old securities behind and not falling back on them under pressure. Also, balancing long-term commitments with emerging challenges is an ongoing struggle.

In a sense, it’s a leap of faith you have to keep on taking. Do you need a champion within the organisation who is going to keep on thinking like that and pushing that line?

Absolutely, and I’m fortunate that our board supports this approach. It’s crucial to have someone continually advocating for these principles, even when established practices are hard to change. And then there also is the team that keeps reminding each other and myself of our principles.

I’m guessing that a lot of local peace building organisations won’t be formal organisations to start with. How difficult is it to find and support more fluid, informal groups?

We are exploring ways to work with less formal groups, but currently, we still require some fiscal structure. This is a challenge we aim to address, possibly in collaboration with other organisations, because we see the demand for it. That’s also why it is so important for the field to have intermediaries which also share the values of local ownership and shifting power.

True collaboration takes time, and it often means sharing credit rather than claiming ownership

What support do you need from others to make your work more effective? ‘Others’ could be other philanthropists, or the public and private sector.

We need broader recognition of peacebuilding’s importance and collaboration across sectors.  We need a general understanding that peacebuilding work and development work is crucial and remains crucial for our global society and that it needs both private and public actors to support it. When it comes to other philanthropic organisations, it is really the willingness to co-operate. Back in 2009, I saw a lot of competition between the big foundations, but nowadays, there is much more openness to work together.  Still, our partners often ask us to play a bigger role in coordinating the efforts being undertaken, sometimes with the feeling that actors in the field know too little about the efforts of others. As funders, we do want to recognise the opportunity we have to serve as a knowledge source of and for different actors in the peacebuilding field. In order to do this, we work closely with other foundations which are active in the field of locally-led peacebuilding, sharing learning experiences and strategies.

And do you see that producing results?

Yes, absolutely. A great example is our collaboration with Peace Nexus, which I consider a model for effective philanthropy. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, we wanted to offer support, despite its not being one of our focus areas. We lacked the capacity for in-depth analysis, so we partnered with Peace Nexus, which had local expertise. They worked together with a local expert on organisation development, identified a network of Ukrainian mediators, funded their development, and prepared them to apply for funding with us. We continue to support their work, and the collaboration is ongoing.

And that wouldn’t have happened if you’d been working in isolation.

Exactly.

What single initiative or change would make the work and development agencies more effective?

Greater collaboration is essential. Truly working together across different agencies and partners, both locally and internationally, would really enhance impact.

What’s stopping that happening more? Is it the time you need to put in to build those things in the first place? People want quick results so they’re unwilling to speculate on the future?

Yes, the main barriers are limited resources and the pressure to show quick results. True collaboration takes time, and it often means sharing credit rather than claiming ownership.

Andrew Milner is features editor at Alliance magazine