Initiation: How Australia Can Contribute to Greater Global Peace-building

Robert Haca, Curtin University, Y20 Global Voices Fellow

Executive Summary

The separation of Australian Aid (AusAID) from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) in 2013 and decreased diplomatic funding as a percentage of total government expenditure has resulted in the decreased prominence of Australia’s peacebuilding presence. In light of the drastic scaling back of United State Agency for International Development’s footprint, Australia must increase its regional and global contribution to peacebuilding, especially in regions such as Myanmar, the Southern Philippines and West Papua, to avoid an erosion of diplomatic influence and ensure regional stability crucial for Australia’s trade routes and economy.

Australia could achieve this by establishing a rigid funding mechanism and organisational framework within DFAT for peacebuilding and conflict resolution initiatives. The passage of a Rapid Response Peacebuilding Grants Program (RRGP) Act would ensure sustainable funding for locally-led peacebuilding initiatives by relevant domestic and international NGOs. The RRGP would be DFAT-managed but have an independent funding mechanism with an indexed cost of $143 million per year provided by the Federal Government. Initial implementation would last up to 12 months due to legislative and logistical requirements, and would thereafter provide between $277,000 to $427,000 to NGOs, subject to several operational requirements and performance metrics. It would also need to mitigate risks surrounding cultural sensitivity, perceived bias and potential stifling of local self-sufficiency. 

Problem Identification

Australian diplomatic funding has continuously decreased over the past three decades, hampering its diplomatic commitments as a developed country to peacebuilding initiatives. Funding for diplomacy as a share of Federal expenditure has decreased from 0.38% in 1995-1996 to 0.19% in 2021-2022, making Australia’s international presence low compared to other G20 countries (19/20) despite its economic size in Nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (15/20) (Lowy Institute, 2024). As a result, the peacebuilding presence of Australia is a relatively small contribution of $29,636,029 to the United Nations (UN) Peacebuilding Fund over 2020-2024 (United Nations, 2024). This is Australia’s sole major financial contribution to peacebuilding initiatives, aside from smaller initiatives funded under the Australian NGO Cooperation Program (ANCP). Increased diplomatic and military competition in the Pacific and Southeast Asia between the United States (US) and China highlights the growing need for Australia to secure its diplomatic independence by boosting its funding for diplomatic and peacebuilding activities. Inaction may risk greater instability and conflict in the Indo-Pacific and elsewhere, and in the case of a conflict between the US and China, severe damage to the Australian economy could occur, with mass unemployment, disrupted trade routes and sustained damage to key Australian industries such as mining and agriculture that rely on stable geopolitical conditions (Uren, 2021).

If no action is taken, Australia may eventually find itself wedged in between two great powers, unable to secure beneficial trading, cultural and diplomatic partnerships with countries in the Pacific, Southeast Asia and other regions. Furthermore, additional funding for international peacebuilding initiatives is crucial as there are more active conflicts (56) today since World War II (Institute for Economics & Peace, 2024), which has only continued in 2025 with increased risks of prolonged conflict in the Middle East and mainland Southeast Asia. For a developed, regional power preparing to take a seat at the UN Peacebuilding Commission in 2025-26, it should take greater steps to maximise its presence in the Commission. Along with other developed countries of similar stature, Australia should ensure greater global peace and stability in conflict-affected countries through sustained funding for peacebuilding initiatives (UNHCR, 2023; Langmore et al., pp. 25-26).

Context

Peacebuilding involves long-term efforts ranging from diplomacy to grassroots initiatives to create a suitable and peaceful environment for sustainable development and social cohesion, avoiding the cycle of conflict. It does this by addressing root causes, repairing relationships between community stakeholders, and reforming institutions to prevent future violence (Australia, Pacific & Asia Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding Network, 2022, pp. 1).

Australia once had a rigid mechanism for international aid funding, which began with the Australian Development Assistance Agency Act 1974, subsequently known as AusAID, before being integrated into DFAT in 2013. AusAID’s primary goals included reducing poverty, promoting sustainable development and fostering stability in the Indo-Pacific region. It addressed root causes of conflict and instability through governance reform, infrastructure development and social cohesion initiatives in several Indo-Pacific countries. These included Timor Leste, the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea (Bougainville). AusAID programs in these countries contributed significantly to conflict resolution, political stabilisation and community resilience, leading to an environment necessary for continued peace in these regions (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2002; Hill 2023). 

The recent integration of AusAID into DFAT signifies the strategic move away from peacebuilding initiatives. The integration of AusAID was done to consolidate aid and diplomatic functions in the Australian Government, and to streamline and enhance coherence in foreign policy operations. This has led to the loss of a general foreign aid framework, along with impeding the establishment of a general peacebuilding framework for Australia. Despite the goal of consolidation, the DFAT Portfolio Budget Statement 2024-2025 has no funding for peacebuilding initiatives mentioned, indicating a lack of priority for such initiatives, with funding only reserved for the UN Peacebuilding Fund, and small grants given to Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) through the ANCP, with no explicit funding for peacebuilding-focused NGOs. The primary focus in the budget remains on security, with “security” being mentioned 43 times in the document, compared to 2 times for “peace” (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2024).

Significant reduction in funding and institutional support for global aid programs specialising in peacebuilding has led to Australia having a limited peacebuilding presence on the global stage (Langmore et al., 2024, p. 44-46). The lack of a dedicated peacebuilding funding mechanism reduces the capacity for peacebuilding and reconciliation efforts globally, which could possibly prevent the need for further defence spending. It may also avert the greater risk of conflict that could significantly damage Australia’s economic prosperity and diplomatic network (Uren, 2021; Langmore et al., 2024, pp. 27-34).

Australia’s current approach to international peacebuilding is largely characterised by external initiatives such as the UN peacebuilding budget, the UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs Multi-Year Appeal (2023-2026) and two projects in Cambodia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) funded through the ANCP (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2023). 

Furthermore, there is a lack of organisational capacity within DFAT for conflict prevention and peacebuilding (Australia, Pacific & Asia Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding Network, 2022, pp. 7). Though DFAT staff are given training in conflict resolution, it needs to be increased to reestablish greater Australian diplomatic presence, such as providing a dedicated specialist team within DFAT that tackles peacebuilding and conflict resolution. Despite the commitments stated at the Global Refugee Forum in 2023, Australia’s international peacebuilding capacity has been deprioritised.

The Australian Government and DFAT, being the primary stakeholders providing aid programs globally on behalf of Australia, need to collaborate with NGOs both domestically and internationally in order to establish a dedicated peacebuilding funding mechanism. This is strategically imperative in the current geopolitical climate, as utilising local partners in target regions to establish peacebuilding programs when needed, funded by international organisations or governments has been proven to work (Autesserre, 2017).

Case Studies

There are numerous examples of peacebuilding and foreign aid funding mechanisms that similar countries have enacted, and the following examples illustrate how dedicated peace-building mechanisms have successfully mitigated conflicts:

United States of America: United States Institute of Peace (USIP) Act (1984)

Created USIP, funded by the US Congress to undertake research, conflict resolution education and drive reconciliation efforts. It also ensured the US funded a dedicated mechanism for peacebuilding initiatives. The Bureau for Conflict Prevention and Stabilisation also exists, partnering with local communities to build foundations for peace and stability. This is complemented by the Global Fragility Act (2019), which established a dedicated interagency fund of US$1.15 billion, the equivalent of $1.82 billion, to stabilise conflict-affected areas (US Department of State, 2022).

Example: USIP's work in Colombia

Since 2008, USIP has supported Colombia to prepare for a political solution to end the 50-year long armed conflict with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Through promoting inclusive peace processes and their formation, convening key leaders, generating trust and building confidence between national security organisations and local communities, USIP contributed to the signing of a peace treaty between FARC and the Colombian national government in 2016. USIP’s work in Colombia continues to prevent further violence by reintegrating and reincorporating former combatants, and working towards addressing root causes of past and potential conflict among local communities (United States Institute of Peace, 2020). 

United Kingdom (UK): Conflict, Stability and Security Fund (CSSF)

Supports specific projects and initiatives to stabilise volatile regions with flexibility and agility, a cross-department initiative across 17 departments and agencies (HM Government, 2024).

Example: CSSF's contribution to supporting a peaceful political settlement in Syria

Expenditure of £5.35m, the equivalent of nearly $11 million, from April 2018 to March 2019 to support progress towards an inclusive political settlement in Syria through a UN-led Geneva peace process. It improved and ensured the contribution of civil society and minorities to the peace process. Furthermore, it supported processes that empowered women in Syria and held violators of human rights to account, contributing towards a more stable environment for peace to occur (HM Government, 2019)

Australia: Australian NGO Cooperation Program (ANCP) Provides $143 million in annual funding from DFAT’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) for “highly effective” Australian NGOs to support disadvantaged communities globally. In 2022-23, the ANCP funded just one peacebuilding-focused project in Cambodia, with funding allocated to peacebuilding being $61,178.25 out of $87,397.5. Another project partially funded peacebuilding-focused efforts in the DRC, with allocated peacebuilding funding being $130,700.5 out of $522,802. This amounts to a total peacebuilding spend from the ANCP of $191,978.75, or 0.0013% of the ANCP’s annual funding (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2024).  

To effectively tackle the lack of institutional support and dedicated funding for Australian peacebuilding programs, future policies need to address the lack of a dedicated funding mechanism in Australia for enhancing and promoting peacebuilding initiatives globally.

Policy Options

Australia must reverse the course of underfunding its contribution to global and regional peace at a critical time by enhancing its global peacebuilding presence. A critical measure of success would be the establishment of a stable, long-term funding and implementation mechanism for peacebuilding initiatives to increase Australia’s capacity and contribution to regional and global peacebuilding efforts. This holds the Australian Government accountable for sustainable funding, and also provides a strategic focus on these programs. Three viable policy options which could potentially achieve this target have been explored:

1. For the Australian Federal Government to reinstate the Australian Development Assistance Agency Act 1974

   
   

   This policy would ensure an independent AusAID separate from DFAT, and would specify funding for an internal peacebuilding and conflict resolution agency. The forecasted Official Development Assistance Budget of $5.097 billion for 2025-2026 would be allocated to AusAID, and funding of no lower than 2% of AusAID’s budget would be dedicated to funding both internal and external peacebuilding initiatives. It secures specific allocations for peacebuilding initiatives, and also allows for quicker implementation and drafting due to its status as a historical framework. However, specifying which external initiatives could be eligible could complicate grant and funding arrangements under a broader organisation. Existing stakeholders such as DFAT may also scrutinise and resist the new organisation, citing the aid component’s existing inclusion in DFAT. Furthermore, without the explicit mention of local peacebuilding partnerships, it may lead to unsustainable solutions in conflict-affected areas.

2. For the Australian Federal Government to establish the Rapid Response Peacebuilding Grants Program (RRPGP) Act to serve as an independent funding mechanism for existing NGOs in Australia and international NGOs where there is a need for peacebuilding initiatives. This policy would ensure Australian and local partnerships to prevent conflict in immediate and wider regions, and will be managed by DFAT. Legislated funding of $143 million per annum indexed to the Reserve Bank’s Consumer Price Inflation would ensure sustainable funding for local partnerships, and the nature of funding will ensure rapid deployment of funds to local and international NGOs. However, legislative delays up to a year may occur, subject to party and crossbench support, with implementation and drafting potentially taking up to six months. Furthermore, the funding would be limited to peacebuilding initiatives, potentially redirecting funding away from more urgent aid programs, such as natural disasters or climate resilience programs. Lastly, funding may be rejected by local communities/governments as it may be viewed as foreign interference in local issues.

   
   

3. For the Australian Federal Government to allocate $50 million in an Appropriation Bill for establishing a specialist peacebuilding and conflict resolution office within DFAT

   
   

   It would facilitate specialised education and training of internal and external stakeholders, and guide targeted peacebuilding and conflict resolutions programs that DFAT potentially engages in in collaboration with international partners such as national governments and NGOs. Targeted programs could help guide and develop peacebuilding and conflict resolution programs for Australian diplomats, ensuring a directed approach for Australian peacebuilding initiatives. However, budgetary constraints within DFAT may cause this to divert funds from other foreign aid programs within DFAT, as establishing a specialised office is resource intensive, and may cause administrative bloat. Furthermore, initial inefficiencies may arise due to its newly established status and education programs may take time to be effective.

Once again, to effectively tackle the issue of lacking financial and institutional support for Australian peacebuilding programs, funding mechanisms such as these need to be implemented to ensure Australia’s place in global peacebuilding and conflict resolution measures, and maintain its diplomatic independence in its immediate regions and elsewhere.

Policy Recommendation

For maximum efficacy, the Federal Government should draft and propose Option 2, the Rapid Response Peacebuilding Grants Program (RRPGP) Act to establish an independent funding mechanism for peacebuilding initiatives in the Indo-Pacific and beyond. The program would be independently funded by the Federal Government but managed by DFAT’s Development, Multilateral and Europe Group (DMEG), with continuously indexed federal funding of $143 million per annum. This estimation is based on the current funding allocated to the ANCP. This would ensure legislated funding, but holistic management by DFAT would also ensure its alignment with Australia’s foreign policy objectives and global peacebuilding priorities. It would also ensure flexibility in the case of ongoing conflicts due to funding existing and ongoing peacebuilding initiatives. NGOs will receive annual funding of $277,000 to $427,000 for specific peacebuilding initiatives. Metrics of success, measured by DFAT and local/international stakeholders, would need to align with the funding criteria below. Additional investment by foreign organisations into local peacebuilding organisations may also be regarded as a measure of success provided they align with the funding criteria below.

Funding Criteria and Metrics of Success

The funding of peacebuilding and conflict resolution initiatives of both Australian and international NGOs, both of whom will be the primary recipients of the program’s funding, will be subject to six criteria. These will be measured by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, on the basis of the Draft Articles of the Convention on Conflict Prevention and Resolution by the Peace Treaty Initiative (Peace Treaty Initiative, 2023). 

1. Conflict resolution and peacebuilding initiatives must be aimed at preventing or mitigating the outbreak of conflicts through mediation, negotiation and dialogue facilitation where there is an explicit need. The aim for this criterion is to decrease the impact and frequency of conflicts, contributing to long-term stability. 

   
   

2. Capacity building is needed in the form of providing training and capacity building in collaboration with local peacebuilders for community leaders and other stakeholders. 

   
   

3. Community engagement to understand local needs and perspectives and empowering them to facilitate independent peacebuilding processes is required so as to prevent a blanket approach to peacebuilding for all conflict-affected regions. 

   1. The second and third criteria are to ensure locally driven, culturally sensitive and independent peacebuilding initiatives are pushed, enhancing their long-term sustainability and effectiveness.

      
      

4. Accountability measures must be introduced by developing and implementing monitoring and evaluation frameworks to assess the efficacy of peacebuilding initiatives, with reports on their activities, outcomes and assessments*. 

   
   

5. Lastly, NGOs should have an established or are establishing an advocacy, awareness or lobbying campaign to generate local and international support for peacebuilding campaigns*.

   
   

These criteria ensure the program is sustainably funding NGOs who are able to provide maximum impact with peacebuilding initiatives globally, strengthening local outcomes and Australia’s diplomatic and peacebuilding profile.

*However, this may not be possible for local NGOs with a lack of funding or staff, and this criterion should be flexible to the specific circumstances of non-Australian NGOs. Bigger NGOs receiving funding of over $5 million annually must ensure the previous criteria are met.

Limitations

There may be a significant delay between funding NGOs and the commencement of peacebuilding projects in conflict-affected areas. Funding may also be misused by local communities that are funded by well-intentioned NGOs, and peacebuilding initiatives led by NGOs have no guarantee of ensuring peace or conflict resolution may occur on a sustainable level in local and regional communities, especially in conflict-affected areas where the level of devastation and tension is high. Navigating these issues requires continuous monitoring of peacebuilding projects and their outcomes. The RRPGP may conflict with certain initiatives that the ANCP already funds, such as the previously mentioned peacebuilding initiatives, leading to potential overlap. Clear communication of the program’s complementary role to DFAT’s existing foreign aid efforts, alongside the efforts of existing NGOs and other countries, must therefore be practised, carving a niche in the peacebuilding and conflict resolution space. Lastly, there is a potential for public opposition, as domestic issues such as the cost of living crisis may be perceived as ignored to fund further foreign aid spending.

Risks

The allocation of resources to specific international peacebuilding initiatives may inadvertently lead to further community tensions if there is perceived bias or inequality in the allocation of funding by local NGOs or partners. Following this, the international aspect of Australian peacebuilding support may be seen as foreign intervention or neocolonialism by local governments and communities, especially in cases of civil wars in certain regions, leading to Australia’s diplomatic profile potentially being tarnished. This can be mitigated by ensuring holistic messaging that prioritises and promotes locally-led initiatives, and for the Australian Government to adequately consult all relevant stakeholders for any funding allocation.

The cultural sensitivity of peacebuilding programs, especially those initiated by Australian or other non-local NGOs in areas of conflict cannot be guaranteed, creating a risk of backlash from local communities. It may also erode local customs and practices of peacebuilding if consistent external influence is present, potentially leading to further conflict. It is important to balance the needs and cultural norms of locals with the wider objectives of reducing conflict and creating a sustainable peace in target regions. A key measure of sustained peacebuilding programs is consistent funding, both local and external. However, misallocation of funds by local stakeholders may occur, as previous food aid programs in target regions have indirectly increased corruption and bureaucracy, as a result of directly “pushing out” funds to local governments instead of specific projects (Shleifer & Bauer, 2009). Greater and more comprehensive oversight of budget allocation must be conducted to mitigate these risks, but potential budgetary and logistical constraints may limit the ability to conduct checks thoroughly without delaying funding.

Crucially, there is also a risk of stifling local initiative and economic independence if local funding and peacebuilding initiatives are not emphasised, despite the measures for funding mentioned above. Funding peacebuilding initiatives also come at the risk of overlooking the impacts of climate change and their effects on exacerbating conflicts. Certain regions continue to suffer food and water shortages because of climate change, hampering sustained peacebuilding efforts as local governments and communities may already lack the means to sustain their respective populations (Krampe et al., 2024). Peacebuilding prioritises eventual self-sufficiency, so Australia must take steps to ensure such programs are funded over immediate means of relief, such as funding local agricultural projects instead of food aid projects. Future policy decision-makers need to take these risks into account if they are to pursue a peacebuilding funding framework for Australia.

References

Australia, Pacific & Asia Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding Network. (2022). Australian International Development Policy Review. In Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (pp. 1–12). https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/new-international-development-policy-submission-australia-pacific-asia-conflict-prevention-peacebuilding-network.pdf

Autesserre, S. (2017). International Peacebuilding and Local Success: Assumptions and Effectiveness. International Studies Review, 19(1), 114–132. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26407939?seq=13

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. (2002). Peace, Conflict and Development Policy. In Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (pp. 1–16). https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/conflict_policy.pdf

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. (2023). ANCP Projects in 2022-23. Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. https://www.dfat.gov.au/aid/who-we-work-with/ngos/ancp/projects

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. (2025). Portfolio Budget Statements 2025-26 Budget Related Paper No. 1.8 Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio. In Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (pp. 1–175). https://www.dfat.gov.au/about-us/corporate/portfolio-budget-statements

Hill, C. (2023, July 27). A short history of Australian aid policy launches. Development Policy Centre. https://devpolicy.org/a-short-history-of-australian-aid-policy-launches-20230728/

HM Government. (2019). Syria CSSF: Whole of Syria Support to a Political Process Programme. In HM Government (pp. 1–2). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/conflict-stability-and-security-fund-middle-east-and-north-africa-annual-review-summaries-2018-to-2019

HM Government. (2024, July 7). Conflict stability and security fund: About us. Gov.uk. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/conflict-stability-and-security-fund/about

Institute for Economics & Peace. (2024). Global Peace Index 2024: Measuring Peace in a Complex World. In Vision of Humanity (pp. 1–85). https://www.visionofhumanity.org/resources/

Krampe, F., O’Driscoll, D., Johnson, M., Simangan, D., Hegazi, F., & Cedric de

Coning. (2024). Climate change and peacebuilding: sub-themes of an emerging research agenda. International Affairs, 100(3). https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiae057

Langmore, J., Miletic, T., Martin, A., & Breen, B. (2020). Security through Sustainable Peace: Australian International Conflict Prevention and

Peacebuilding (pp. 6–54). https://arts.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/3495721/Security-Through-Sustainable-Peace-Report.pdf

Lowy Institute. (2024). Lowy Institute Global Diplomacy Index 2024. In Lowy Institute Global Diplomacy Index. https://globaldiplomacyindex.lowyinstitute.org/country_ranking

Peace Treaty Initiative. (2023). Draft articles of the convention on conflict prevention and resolution. 1–17.

Shleifer, A., & Bauer, P. (2009). Peter Bauer and the Failure of Foreign Aid. Cato Journal, 29(3), 379–390. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2010/11/cj29n3-1.pdf

The United States Institute of Peace Act, 1701-1712 (1984). https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/2017-03/usip_act.pdf

UNHCR. (2023). The Global Refugee Forum 2023. UNHCR Australia. https://www.unhcr.org/au/global-refugee-forum-2023-0

United Nations. (2023, July 31). Troop and police contributors. United Nations Peacekeeping. https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/troop-and-police-contributors

United Nations. (2024, July 1). Fund | United Nations Peacebuilding. United Nations. https://www.un.org/peacebuilding/fund

United States Institute of Peace. (2020). The Current Situation in Colombia: A USIP Fact Sheet. In United States Institute of Peace (pp. 1–2). United States Institute of Peace. https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/2020-12/the-current-situation-in-colombia.pdf

United Nations. (2024, July 1). Fund | United Nations Peacebuilding. United Nations. https://www.un.org/peacebuilding/fund

Uren, D. (2021, June 22). What if …? Economic consequences for Australia of a US–China conflict over Taiwan. The Strategist. https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/what-if-economic-consequences-for-australia-of-a-us-china-conflict-over-taiwan/

US Department of State. (2022, April 1). 2022 Prologue to the United States Strategy to Prevent Conflict and Promote Stability. United States Department of State. https://www.state.gov/2022-prologue-to-the-united-states-strategy-to-prevent-conflict-and-promote-stability/#:~:text=The%20landmark%202019%20Global%20Fragility

Zimmerman, S. (2023, October 11). The importance of peacekeeping to meeting Australia’s strategic objectives. The Strategist. https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-importance-of-peacekeeping-to-meeting-australias-strategic-objectives/#:~:text=Australia%20has%20a%20proud%20history

The views and opinions expressed by Global Voices Fellows do not necessarily reflect those of the organisation or its staff.