Closing Address Rien van Gendt
Annual Conference EFC
May 28, 2006 Brussels
I would like to use the short time I have to make a couple of observations. Actually there are three sets of observations. To a certain extent they are based on this conference and to a certain extent they are based on some recent experiences in my position with the Van Leer Group Foundation and my active involvement with the EFC-COF working group on accountability for international philanthropy, the EFC working group preparing principles of good practice, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, the Network of European Foundations for Innovative Cooperation (NEF) and the Dutch Association of Foundations (FIN).
1. My first set of remarks is inspired by the joint EFC-COF activity on accountability for international philanthropy: a unique project of these two organisations co-operating with each other. Recently a meeting took place in Cape Town, South Africa, where 30 African NGO’s spoke out about how they perceive their relations with grantmaking foundations. I was impressed by their candour and the articulate way in which they presented their arguments. When foundations address the issue of accountability, it normally implies two different things: first of all that you hold someone else accountable to you; secondly, if you are held accountable as a foundation, it normally means accountability to governments in the sense of obedience to enforceable rules and laws. The joint EFC-COF project on accountability is different: we are not holding someone else accountable, we are accountable. We are not looking at obedience to enforceable rules and laws. No, accountability in this context is looked upon in terms of obedience to the unenforceable, the accountability to recipients, to grantees. Obviously this is not just relevant for international philanthropy. It is also relevant for domestic philanthropy, but accountability for international philanthropy deserves special attention given the different cultural settings and contextual differences that are at stake. I would like to show you the complexity of properly identifying principles for accountability for international philanthropy. I will do so by briefly pointing at three common beliefs that lend themselves to some demystification.
First of all, there is a widespread notion that as a foundation you should select your domain of grant making very carefully, that you should not only make geographical choices but also programmatic ones. You can not be all over the place; you should have focus in order to have impact. However the downside of concentrating your grant making on one specific area of substance is that you could become also very one-dimensional and that you would loose sight of the negative unintended side effects of your grant making. A good example is the discussion about foundations focusing on nature conservation in Africa that loose sight of the unintended effects of nature conservation on the position and human rights of indigenous people. In other words focus may be in conflict with the need for a comprehensive approach. This does not automatically imply that foundations therefore should widen their mandate. You can also achieve a more comprehensive approach by entering into partnerships with other foundations. The point is that you should be aware of the fact that your partial take at a problem may have negative unintended effects.
Second common belief: there is a wide spread notion that foundations should be proactive in selecting programmes and projects for grant making in stead of sitting back and waiting for proposals to come in. A reactive approach is not seen as innovative. However the proactive approach can be questioned in terms of its legitimacy, because there is a danger that you would pursue your own interests in isolation of the relevance for the society, communities and citizens. How do you select your programmes and projects when you are pro-active? Would it not be better to be mildly and smartly reactive as a foundation and thereby have a proxy for your relevance? Is, to be reactive, not a better reflection of really positioning yourself as attentive listener to the needs in the field.
The third common belief: there is a wide spread notion among foundations that it is important to have a long haul approach and not to go for a quick fix; that it is important to make a long term commitment to a grantee and to build up strong relations with projects. However the downside of long and lasting relations is that you may loose as a foundation your sense of objectivity and detachment. You may establish very personal relations with recipients from which it is difficult to break away, while the outside world (particularly the NGO’s not supported by you) looks upon your relation with grantees as an incestuous relation.
These were my three points showing the complexity to identify principles for accountability in international philanthropy. Respect for different cultures and respect for the integrity of a relationship with grantees is actually one of the few principles that have a more absolute value. Respect for different cultures is not only relevant for us as European foundations working in Africa, Latin America or in Asia. It is even relevant within Europe. For instance there are even huge differences between Belgium and the Netherlands in terms of cultures and national characteristics. Luc will agree with this. If you are not aware of this you can go terribly wrong. An example is the difference in management style in Belgium and the Netherlands. In the Netherlands an executive director of an organisation could, in defining his strategy or under difficult circumstances, easily and endlessly consult his staff to seek their views. This participatory approach to reach consensus is really appreciated by employees and staff in the Netherlands. Sometimes people say that consensus is for the Dutch what sex is for other people. However in Belgium a participatory approach is not at all appreciated by your staff. When a boss turns to his staff in Belgium to ask for their opinion, staff will say: ‘allez’ the boss is confused, he does not know what he wants, which direction he would like to take. They will even say: we believe that the future of the company is at stake. We better resign and look for another job outside this organisation. So important is culture.
2. While the first set of remarks dealt with the how of grant making, the second set of remarks deals with the what. I believe it is important for foundations to strike the right balance between respect for the legacy and donor intent on the one hand and a dynamic dimension of assessing and reviewing a mandate in light of new realities on the other hand. I am convinced that in many cases a founder, if still alive, would be the first to start a discussion in the Board about adaptations of the mandate of the foundation. Founders are often more entrepreneurial than the Trustees that follow in the same foundation. Trustees are sometimes rigidly defending a mandate of the foundation, while the founders themselves would most probably have adapted the mandate already, not because of a whim of fashion but because the environment in which a foundation operates shows fundamental changes. More specifically in a global world, where domestic and international issues are closely interconnected, it is difficult to imagine that foundations can just restrict themselves to their immediate backyard. Courage is needed from Executives and Trustees to assess and reconsider mandates, particularly in times that our societies are confronted with the urgency of new international and global challenges.
An example of such a challenge is in my opinion formed by the global disparities in the world, the related need for sustainable development and the plight of foundations to play a thoughtful role in the international domain. We can not ignore these disparities, injustices and sufferings as foundations. And as recently was discussed in a Lisbon meeting of the International Committee, problems are more acute as the existing global governance structures that are supposed to address these issues are inadequate. This is a challenge in itself.
Obviously there are other examples of challenges of a global nature that affect the role of independent foundations. Yesterday in a meeting organised by the Madariaga Foundation and Friends of Europe attention was paid to the immense issue of our natural environment and the demographic changes in Europe and rightly so. Let me mention another challenge. We should be concerned about the fact that we live in an era characterised by a divide in the relation between the citizen and the political establishment; that people often do not feel that they are properly represented, they do not feel that they are being taken seriously and they look at the political elite with suspicion. It should provide us a sense of urgency to give a boost to civil society development, to mobilise private money for the public good and to demonstrate that solidarity does not just mean income transfers for public goods and services through taxation.
Let me yet mention another example of a global challenge relevant for us as European foundations. Recently I chaired a NEF meeting on religious tolerance and bigotry. In this meeting it became clear that instead of assuming that we understand the problems of social unrest in our multicultural societies and can more or less automatically move on to the next phase of designing concrete projects, we have to better conceptualise the problems we experience and disentangle a very complex reality. What lies underneath the problems that lead to the tragic accidents and incidents of the last years in many of the European countries, is with a certain simplicity brought back to single issues, like the intolerance of particular religions and extremism. I strongly believe that we should invest as foundations in reframing the main issues and in gaining a better understanding of the root causes in stead of rushing in to another set of operational projects. Is religion the dominating factor in understanding social unrest? Or is it racial discrimination, is it culture, does it relate to a lack of educational opportunities, does it relate to social exclusion and to the deprived economic situation of segments of our society, particularly young people from foreign decent without any perspective, is it related to failed integration policies? Should we address these problems by emphasising respect for diversity, should we frame the problem as the compatibility, or the lack thereof, between secularism, democracy and religion, are the problems caused by the tension between the global world and the local community, by the fact that the specific cultural identity of people is threatened and that they want to protect that identity, while they otherwise behave as global citizens and consumers?
It is our task and even moral obligation as foundations to avoid that we go by impressions and that we come up with the quick fix solutions that look politically and socially correct but may turn out to be cosmetic and ineffective. Trying to understand reality is a condition sine qua non for us to do the right things and be effective.
3. My last set of remarks relates to the issue that we, as foundations, should really use our potential advantages, that we should turn the jargon, which we use about risk taking, being entrepreneurial and being an innovative force, into reality. We speak about risk taking and social venturing, but in reality we often practice risk aversion and do the kind of things that can also be done by the government. Frequently we work with the larger, darling NGO’s and find it too risky to reach out to smaller NGO’s that are relatively young; we become more interested in compliance than in performance. We speak about innovation, but in reality we are perfecting what we have done for the last decades. We see ourselves as entrepreneurs, but in reality we still find it easier to grant away than to risk away and to explore new financial instruments in philanthropy.
I hope that many of these issues will determine our agenda’s in our foundations and in the EFC. The EFC can play, and I am sure, under Gerry’s leadership, will play a crucial role in these discussions.
As a member of the EFC, I would like to thank Dan Brandstrom for his outstanding contribution to philanthropy in Europe and the EFC in particular. I would like to welcome Wilhelm Krull. This organization deserves a strong leadership both on the Executive level and on the level of the Board. It is great to see that we had this with John Richardson and Dan Brandstrom and now with Gerry Salole and Wilhelm Krull. The EFC needs people that can bring vision to the world of philanthropy, people that can inspire and go beyond the daily routine and even go beyond the challenges that come with any large membership organization. What is important is what drives us, and what we stand for in a world that is changing rapidly. This also puts on us as members of EFC an obligation to mobilize the necessary resources for this organization, not just in kind but also money wise. It is important that we as foundations look at our contribution to EFC not just as a membership fee, that has to be defended against our Boards and the outside world because our administrative costs and overhead are being looked at with certain nervousness. We should broaden our view with respect to the contribution to EFC and consider it as an investment grant and an engagement in organized philanthropy in Europe and in the world. EFC then becomes a project partner for whom the mobilization of grant monies is justified. Join me in expressing our thanks to Dan Brandstrom and our support to the new duo: Wilhelm Krull and Gerry Salole.
Rien van Gendt 28 Mei, 2006