Human rights, rural funds in Russia, extractives industry and individual giving in Central Europe: new reports shed light on different dimensions of community philanthropy
22 Mar 2017
A few years’ ago, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation published a report called What Does Community Philanthropy Look Like? With its emphasis on some of the less visible dimensions of effective development – the “runny glue” of social trust, the “plumbing and wiring” of a resilient and rooted civil society sector, and the “more than money” value of grantmaking, all important and, perhaps obvious, stuff – community philanthropy can be hard to sum up. The GFCF is very pleased, therefore, to be investing in, and sharing, new resources that shine a light on community philanthropy and its application across a range of contexts and conversations. Here are four of those:
‘Community philanthropy: a way forward for human rights?’
As the number of governments joining the accelerating global trend of restricting civil society at home with the claim that they are protecting their country against meddling “foreign powers”, what role can community philanthropy, and local resource mobilization play, as part of larger strategy for constituency-building around rights and justice issues? Is “local philanthropy” a friend or foe to rights’ agendas? How can human rights funders support partners in their efforts to build a local support base or, at least how can they ensure that their funding doesn’t end up harming or undermining such work by feeding into a “foreign funding” narrative. Mona Younis, a founding board member and former acting director of the Arab Human Rights Fund, explores these questions in this report.
Related artice: Local funding is not just an option anymore – it’s an imperative
‘When size matters: the phenomenon of community foundations in small towns and rural areas of Russia’
Russia is a huge country, spanning 11,000 km and nine time zones. In 1998, the first Russian community foundation was established in Togliatti. Since then, another 70 or so community foundations have emerged. Significantly, as this new report from CAF Russia explores, three quarters of these are located in small towns and rural areas rather than big cities. Why has the community foundation / community fund idea garnered such interest, particularly in often small, remote and overlooked towns and communities? What gaps in local communities are these organizations filling?
The report is rich in numbers and stories. Some highlights:
- No community is too small or too remote: the most remote community foundation in Russia is in Plastun, Primorskyie Krai (population of 4,500) and the smallest in North West Karelia;
- In many of these small towns and rural communities community foundations are playing a critical role in restoring public trust – whether between neighbours or in the power of the collective;
- There is a role for money: small grants – and these are often really small grants! – are an essential tool in unlocking agency and inspiring local ideas;
- It’s not just about money: community foundations in Russia are mobilizing other kinds of resources beyond money, the biggest of which is people, local residents, who come together to produce plays, make jam and just generally be in each other spaces;
- Community funds and foundations are restoring hope and strengthening resilience in places where there has been a gradual erosion of any sense of community.
See also: A short, haunting and heart-warming film about a small and desolate community in Russia’s remote Primorski Krai which tells what happened when a Russian sailing frigate called “Hope” came to town. And how the local community foundation, which serves Plastun’s 4,500 residents has also played its own role in working to restore hope in a community where it has been long-lost (watch here in English, with Russian sub-titles).
‘An untapped resource? The extractives industry and community self-management of assets’ and accompanying Case Study: Cherokee Preservation Foundation
In this period of intense global flux, the international community is grappling with two formidable and simultaneous phenomena: the exponential growth of resource extraction and the rise of local communities demanding their right to self‑determination. From Mongolia to Madagascar to Brazil, resource extraction is occurring on a larger scale than ever before, and many of these projects are being executed in increasingly remote regions that are home to Indigenous and rural communities. While these industries have played a major role in increasing standards of living and global prosperity generally, it is also widely recognized that benefits and negative impacts have not been evenly shared. Significant conflict has accompanied the unprecedented economic growth of the last several decades.
Is it possible for extractive corporations to support community self‑determination and communities’ capacity to govern their assets over the long term? Is long‑term corporate investment in / corporate funding for community foundations a viable mechanism to achieve this goal, both for communities and companies? To explore these questions, the GFCF and First Peoples Worldwide embarked on a joint research project, which combined a literature review, consultation with industry and civil society leaders, and interviews with corporate representatives for social investment from major oil and mining companies.
It was gambling – not mining – that led to sizeable assets suddenly being created within the community of the Eastern Band of Cherokee in western Northern Carolina. However, the experiences of the Cherokee Preservation Foundation – the local institution created to both steward the assets and to put them at the heart of a community development strategy – offer important insights to community leaders, development practitioners and others in (often marginalized) communities facing the threats and opportunities presented by resource extraction.
‘Growing Individual Giving: Learning from Experiences in Serbia, Czech Republic, and Romania’
This research was undertaken with the intention of understanding donors in Central Europe better, based on the hypothesis that donors want to be part of the solution, and wish to contribute more than with their money only, but are in reality seldom asked what they think and want. Using the Most Significant Change methodology, over the course of this study 24 donors were interviewed at length to better understand where they saw the greatest impact of their giving.
The results across the three countries confirmed that everything circles back to trust. And while building trust is a complex process, especially when working with individual donors who have different needs and expectations, the report underlines the necessity of doing so, and offers a set of recommendations that will help other community philanthropy organizations strengthen donor relations and communication.