Monthly Archives: November 2018

Alex Shoebridge
Peace Advisor
Oxfam Ibis

There is a growing chorus calling for greater inclusivity and local ownership of peace and peacebuilding processes. The “choir” – so to speak – is a mix of both unexpected and expected actors, some who have been singing the song for a long time, and others that have more recently begun tuning in.

The rhetoric and policy discussions mark a welcome shift, yet it is critical that we unpack the ideas of “local ownership” and “inclusivity” further still. The ultimate irony would be to import external notions of these ideas to the very contexts where international peacebuilding support is seeking to get behind locally-driven and owned peacebuilding efforts. This would only serve to undermine any peacebuilding outcomes sought through such initiatives and, in a context of shrinking and changing civic space in many conflict-affected contexts, inadvertently place many civil activists working for peace in very real danger.

Local ownership means that local concerns are at the center of peacebuilding. Inclusivity means that a range of voices feed in to shape “the local” in a way that represents and reflects the diversity of the context, whether it be in terms of gender, age, ethnicity, socio-economic status, etc.

It means going beyond the capital city. It means “connecting the dots” between local actors working on different elements of peacebuilding, in different places, and through different methods. It means having those same actors identify and drive the agenda. And, if all these elements are to be fully comprehended by international actors – be they Member States, the UN, the World Bank, or INGOs – it requires fundamental changes to how we operate and engage.

The international architecture of peacebuilding support involves a range of actors – from donors, INGOs, to the UN and, increasingly, the World Bank. While it is in itself an achievement – albeit a modest one – that such a diverse range of stakeholders now recognize the importance of local ownership and inclusivity, we need to appreciate that some actors are better positioned than others to translate this rhetoric into practice. The UN and World Bank – by virtue of their composition and mandate – are Member State organizations and, thus, accountable and directed towards serving Governments. In many fragile and conflict-affected settings this in itself limits the space and influence such actors may have in pushing for greater inclusivity. INGOs and some donors may have more flexibility, and therefore be able to engage directly with local civic actors working on and for peace. In both instances, more can be done to connect the work of different stakeholders so that it can complement each other.

The choir is starting to play the right notes, but whether they can string it together into a melody that resonates in fragile and conflict-affected contexts remains to be seen. Stay tuned.

By Elise Ford Supporting people directly affected by conflict is often presented as a moral imperative: these are the actors that deserve our support.  But local peacebuilders are much more than that. Local and national actors working at the frontlines of peace are the only actors with the knowledge, relationships and legitimacy to foster lasting change. The evidence is clear:  locally led peacebuilding is not just the principled choice, but the only choice if we are serious about achieving the goal of sustainable and inclusive peace. Work by organisations like Peace Direct, researchers like Severine Autesserre and initiatives like USAID’s Local Works demonstrate the tangible impact of local peace. There have also been countless new, ambitious peace policy frameworks in recent years.  Most—and probably all—of these documents emphasize the importance of local ownership.  But we’ve seen time and again that policy commitments alone won’t overcome the pervasive and dominant dynamics that currently drive peacebuilding approaches.  Shifting these dynamics will require not simply agreement on abstract principles, but rather a fundamental shift in the culture and DNA of peacebuilding. Humanity United has made a commitment to put local and national actors at the heart of our peacebuilding efforts.  That is a core principle for how we design our peacebuilding work, but we also want to ensure that locally driven peace is the default solution to conflict for everyone. The Conducive Space for Peace initiative is a key partnership for Humanity United as part of a broader set of activities we are supporting to kickstart a global conversation about how we can begin to do peace differently.  Critical questions that must be answered as part of this transformation include:

• How can power and resources be better channeled to local actors already playing a central role as peace change agents?
• How can funders move away from business as usual towards models that allow for more risk-taking, innovation and sustained support?
• How do we move from upward accountability model – reporting back to political constituencies and tax-payers – and instead allow international support to be judged by the affected communities it is intended to serve?

Tackling these big questions will require creativity and innovation from players that share our end goals from within and outside the formal peacebuilding field. The Conducive Space for Peace Accelerator event during Geneva Peace Week will bring together actors from across the globe who share a commitment of creating a Conducive Space for Peace.  We hope this conversations, meetings, and relationships built over this event will sharpen our toolkit to bring about systemic change and strengthen the movement for locally driven peace. We’re excited to see what emerges.