It’s not often that we get a chance to celebrate the culmination of our peacebuilding achievements, but last week in Brussels, International Alert celebrated the end of its three-year project, the Initiative for Peacebuilding (IfP). The finale, which was held in a unique Moorish “folly” in the centre of Brussels, was a chance for Alert and partners to highlight the Initiative’s “Milestones on the Road to Peace” as well as draw attention to the human dimension of our work.
This paper summarises current debates on conflict, aid and peacebuilding and suggests that humanitarian agencies can go beyond avoiding negative impacts on conflict (‘Do No Harm’), to contributing positively to conflict transformation and peacebuilding (‘Do Good’) in a way that respects their core mandates and key humanitarian principles. The paper argues that this may be achieved by incorporating a ‘conflict sensitive’ approach in planning and programming. ‘Conflict sensitivity’ can be defined as the capacity of an organisation to:
This report summarises current debate on conflict, aid and peacebuilding and suggests that humanitarian agencies can go beyond avoiding negative impacts on conflict to contributing positively to peacebuilding in a way that respects their core mandates and key humanitarian principles.
A legitimate, representative and capacitated civil society is essential for effective statebuilding and a condition for sustainable peace in Nepal. Donor support to civil society in the Nepali conflict context can be conceptualised in a number of ways. Strategies can broadly focus at the national, district and community levels, or on urban and rural constituencies. Similarly, a temporal distinction can be made between short-, medium- and long-term strategies.
This report is divided into two sections. The first section is a brief overview of the new context in Nepal resulting from the People’s Movement II of April 2006. The second section comprises the substantive part of the report and offers concrete recommendations for how donors can collaborate to support civil society in peacebuilding and conflict transformation. In the current context, greater focus has been given to recommendations based on collaborative donor support to civil society outside of Kathmandu.
Across the Great Lakes region, efforts are underway to lay the foundations for peaceful, stable and ultimately prosperous development. The challenges are enormous. Economies are in tatters, human suffering remains widespread, and poor or weak governance continues to undermine the process of development. In this regional context, and even right across central and southern Africa, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is pivotal.
Produced as part of the EU-funded Conflict Prevention Partnership, this paper analyses the context in which the European Union uses its external relations instruments to address security issues, promote legitimate and effective governance, and support economic recovery and regional integration, in the DRC. Consultations in the region and in the EU, as well as meetings held in Kinshasa in September 2006 with local officials, civil society and international diplomats have been used to develop recommendations and suggest possible avenues under each theme.
This paper is aimed at motivating and informing discussion within the EU institutions and Member States on the nature of their engagement in the South Caucasus.It suggests priority areas for political dialogue and external assistance programming under the upcoming EC Country and Regional Strategy Papers.
This paper is aimed at motivating and informing discussion within the EU institutions and Member States on the nature of their engagement in the South Caucasus. It suggests priority areas for political dialogue and external assistance programming under the upcoming EC Country and Regional Strategy Papers. It argues that unless authorities and civil society in the region, supported by the international community, genuinely address the root causes of violent conflict, societal instability and distrust, then broad-based development and prosperity will remain beyond reach.
This paper grows from the meeting between IA and the Donor Group on 23rd November 2006 on how to respond effectively and appropriately in the changed political context in Nepal. Drawing on the comments and analysis at the meeting, this paper offers recommendations on priorities for donor engagement. The basic theme is that short-term goals can be achieved, but only if addressing the culture of power in Nepal is the starting point.
Over the past 50 years, Nepal has received over USD11 billion in foreign aid.Today, almost 50 bilateral and multilateral donor agencies and more than 100 INGOs regularly provide aid to Nepal. International aid accounts for the majority of the national development budget whereby Nepal is dependent on aid (loans and grants) for basic service delivery, social and economic infrastructure development.Nepal remains, however, one of the poorest countries in South Asia, with over one quarter of the population under the poverty line and huge swathes of the country food-poor.
This paper aims to provide a think-piece for how donor strategies might respond in support of Nepal's future prospects for sustainable peace. It does this recognising that Nepal is still suffering from the causes and consequences of 10 years of debilitating violent conflict and a history of multiple, parallel governance systems
The European Union’s declarations of its commitment to conflict prevention have been welcomed because development and poverty reduction are unsustainable in the face of ongoing or renewed violent conflict.A comprehensive prevention approach and emphasis on tackling root causes of conflict are vital not only for improving the lives and livelihoods of directly affected populations, but also because instability and war can often spill across regions. They can have global ramifications on security and prosperity.
New strategy papers for the EU's engagement with developing countries will soon be agreed. The activities under them will have fundamental impacts on the contexts in which they will be applied, and many of these are prone to, or affected by, violent conflict, or experience some kind of societal or state fragility. Recognising the importance of the strategy papers, and the programming which will flow from them, International Alert, Saferworld and the European Peaceubilding Liaison Office, have come together to produce this briefing paper, providing analysis and advice for decision-making in Brussels and in the field.
This study outlines the particular development challenges confronting international actors in fragile and conflict-affected countries, and gives a summary of the World Bank’s evolving approach to those challenges. The study then sets out certain key problems which, despite recent improvements, continue to reduce the quality of the Bank’s impacts. Noting the inconsistencies in the Bank’s approaches, it assesses the factors that determine the Bank’s ability to deal with, and help address, the immense complexity of its operating environments. It concludes with recommendations for improving approaches to those complexities.
Many millions of people are currently affected by humanitarian crises, and the number is sure to rise. There were 36 armed conflicts in the world in 2008 (up from 34 in 2007)1, and 414 natural disasters affecting 211 million people.2 Overall, there were 16 million refugees, 50 million people internally displaced,3 and 90 million in need of food aid.4 These are the most vulnerable people in the world, and the primary focus of humanitarian relief efforts, which currently cost approximately US$9 billion per year5 and engage over 200,000 aid workers around the world.6
In this challenge paper the members of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council propose a new vulnerability and protection business model for humanitarian assistance. This new model should have six requirements: A comprehensive risk framework; A reworked balance of spending between response, prevention and recovery; A big investment in national and local capacity; Fuller engagement of the private sector; Linking of the humanitarian to broader social and economic development issues; and Regional and international readiness to address cross-border humanitarian issues.