Considerazioni finali AGA 2015

­Community resilience

Rossella Ferorelli and Elena Lombardo

We listened to many experiences that made us understand the strategies to build resilient communities. We recognize the importance of the keywords we heard most often: commons, community empowerment, bottom-up initiatives, latent energies on the ground, dialogue and active participation. We learned about resilience built through urban regeneration and cultural innovation, but also, on how communities act in emergency contexts and natural disasters recovery.

We have learned less about the role of foundations in supporting the coordination of these energies, and even less so about shared responsibilities of philanthropy, institutions and grass roots. Also, we recognize that, foundations often engage in highly politicized fields when sustaining resilient communities; so, a more explicit discussion of the political implications of this social action would be interesting and we think it’s needed. This is something to be taken into consideration especially in fragile environments, contexts of war and the developing world.

Case studies, site visits and workshops were effective and useful to let us see how various approaches to resilience work in very different contexts.

But we found a latent issue in this narrative: the issue of evaluation, not only of the costs and benefits of philanthropic action, but also of their political consequences, of their impact especially when it relates to intangible factors and values. Clearly identifying and measuring social impacts (short and long term) is a big challenge. This conference has triggered these questions in some of us; we have discussed, but of course we have not found an answer in just 48 hours. We would like to learn more, and we will go further on this.

Philanthropy, government and corporate engagement for social equality

Monica Bernardi and Elisa Longoni

We have heard a lot about the communication gap between foundations, on one side, and research community and private sector actors, on the other side. We understand this is a key issue as the need of a common language shared by all actors involved is crucial to determine a success mainly in cross-sector cooperation. However, some points of convergence have emerged in many sessions: first, private actors seem to be more and more involved in the protection of social values such as gender equality, secondly foundations have started to get closer to businesses' approach opening the debate for venture capital philanthropy.

But we would like to hear more about the language spoken between foundations and civil society since a common language is required also here to better understand local communities' needs. We think is important to focus on how foundations relate to local communities and the strategies they use to meet the beneficiaries' needs. And there is also a crucial point

We have heard a lot about the importance of foundations in filling the gap that governments have left open. In other words, especially in our time of crisis when the role of governments as service provider becomes lighter and the trust in policy-makers decreases, foundations can respond to communities' welfare needs; sometimes filling governments’ lack of interventions by becoming in a way a sort of mediator.

We have not heard a reflection on the topic of sharing economy; this conference could be an opportunity to understand how foundations can take advantage from this new form of emerging economy and of its economic, social and environmental benefits.

We have the impression that a more deep debate about the role of foundations in advocating these communities is necessary. We would like to know whether and how foundations bring communities’ needs to the attention of the policy-makers. In other words, Can foundations play this role? Can they really influence the political process? Do this have a positive or negative impact on civil society?

Future of the planet… food for thoughts

Alessandro Frigerio and Elisa Ricciuti

How to feed this future? Expo is a great opportunity to start talking about this topic, but we wish the debate does not stop in October… It’s just the beginning.

We’ve experienced in these days, both during lunch breaks and site visits, some really excellent food...we know this is the result of strongly resilient cultural systems! The Italian way. And we have also heard a lot about a renewed awareness and attention to systemic food policies as social and economic drivers for sustainable development.

However, it would be nice to hear more about the great challenge of matching those food policies with climate-change adaptation strategies, investing much more in understanding the local communities role and promoting new governance models along the entire food supply chain. We strongly believe that philanthropy can play a decisive role in pushing for innovative approaches and advancing knowledge in this respect.

The debate on the future of our planet has not been focused just on food. Indeed, in the past few days, we heard a lot about sustainable change and social innovation. We could find these words connected to a wide variety of topics discussed these days, in almost half of the sessions’ descriptions in the conference program, as they are new ‘buzzwords’ connected to philanthropy and the role of foundations nowadays.

However, we would like to hear more on the role of foundations in contributing to match sustainable change and social innovation to social equality and ethics, challenging the structural sources of injustice and inequality in our societies. Would you agree that one of your leaders’ functions is to open the black box of conflicting interests, strengthening your ethical axis, as for example the Divest-Invest movement has attempted to do?

Youth

Giacomo Tagiuri and Laura Zoboli

We have heard a lot about the central role of youth for driving change, about the importance of empowering younger generations by improving education and lowering unemployment, about the importance of helping the youth of migrant communities to overcome their inherited disadvantage, and about the importance of starting to work as early as possible with children, on their skills and equal opportunities. We recognize these are key issues, at the basis of any serious talk about youth and we have learned a great deal by listening to the expertise and innovative practices that are being built by foundations. We have also heard, but less-so, about the importance of involving youth in decision-making processes – youth not only as a target of help or as a disadvantaged group, but as a player, a key actor of change, also in the world of philanthropy. It’s been encouraging to see how many young people were present here and to listen and learn from their experiences.

In this regard, we would like to encourage a more open discussion of the problems of inter-generational inequality: acknowledging the existence of power gaps, which are first of all economic gaps, between those who make decisions and those who are affected by these decisions, between the funders and the funded, between adults and the youth.

This is first of all a cultural challenge: it requires thinking differently about young people, breaking the boundaries between “us” and “them”, giving them voice (and listening) even if they speak a different language which is difficult to recognize. It requires allowing the true concerns of young people to come to the table and to let them alter the priorities of decision-makers, including foundations.

We understand we probably won’t be the beneficiaries of this change (we are too old for that!), but we are confident our generation (people who are now in their 20s or 30s) could be a key player in this transition, making the necessary connection between today’s leaders and tomorrow’s youth.

For these reasons, we believe it is very important to study the mechanisms through which the voice of young people can get to foundations, to experiment and take more risks in this area. As one of the philanthropists we interviewed recognized: “having the money does not give foundations the legitimacy of a better thought.” Perhaps, that better thought and that legitimacy can come from listening to those who have less power, starting from the youth.

 

Conclusions

Chiara Galbersanini and Jean-Baptiste Geissler

We heard a lot about opening up to other stakeholders like governments or companies, but we didn’t see many of them in the sessions. We sometimes had the impression that foundations were mainly talking to foundations. Exchanging experiences among foundations is certainly useful, but it can lead to remain blind to other important actors. As we said earlier, we have to find a common language with them, but also moments and places for meeting each other and building diversified networks. Only then, will we have solid basis to start acting together.

But the opening should not be limited to relevant actors. It should be directed to the public at large. Community resilience was one of the pillars of this conference, and we all agree that having a stronger civil society contributes to it. We heard a lot about the necessity of being receptive to the needs and desires of citizens, but little was said on how to engage with them. Not only for projects, not only in determined moments, but leaving the door open so that the interaction is permanent. Foundations are the nodes around which civil society can strengthen.

We heard a lot about the importance of social networks, and many encouragements to use them to foster interactions. We have been quite active on them but we saw only few of you… and very little debate. It may sound like a detail, but it is important because… in a conference that is limited in its audience and time, using social media can allow to continue the discussion and start engaging with the missing actors as well as the larger public. The debate can start now gathering on the social media!