Why do we need the African Union? This question was the central theme of the interactive meeting organized by the European Center for Development Policy Management (ECDPM) and hosted by the Platform on 28 September.

Bringing together experts and practitioners from Europe and Africa, and from NGOs, the meeting delved into what the AU has achieved in the 15 years since its founding, what role it can play now and in the future, and how to improve cooperation and coordination between the AU and other regional and international bodies, most specifically the European Union.

The AU: working for Africa?

The meeting started with a session that set the scene, questioning the achievements of the AU so far, and what threats and opportunities face the AU in this day and age. In a relatively short time, it was said, the AU has been an agent of change in the region. While its remains an “imperfect” organization, it is an African Union, representing African interests and aspirations.

The African Union is necessary in a global world where decentralization is needed for more effective governance. Engagement beyond African borders, particularly with actors like the EU and the UN, is streamlined with the AU as the face of its 54 member states, bringing their common needs and perspectives together. Additionally, the AU is a more effective advocacy tool, leveraging the negotiating power of 54 countries at the same time. However, while the AU was seen as a historic step forward a generation ago, uniting the continent, it is crucial for the Union to remain in touch with young people in Africa, some of whom see the AU as a question mark.

The AU will play a particularly important role in addressing some of the megatrends that loom not only over Africa, but also the rest of the world. Exponential population growth, urbanization, climate change and the global economic slowdown have all impacted Africa. These threats require a comprehensive and collective response from the AU, with a focus on sustainable and long-term programs, better education, improved infrastructure, enhanced freedom of movement in Africa, fair and free trade and more.

Equality, honest and self-reflection

One of the most crucial insights from the meeting was the lack of equality in dealings between the AU and EU, as well as other partners. The need for conversations about efforts to address problems inside and outside of Africa to be held from positions of equal footing and respect were highlighted repeatedly. One of the consequences of this unequal partnership is the misunderstanding of priorities between the EU and AU. Where the EU often cites migration and terrorism as pressing threats, African states may be more concerned by climate change, resource depletion, the youth bulge and lack of economic opportunities. This disconnect hampers the efforts undertaken on both sides. Similarly, the tension between justice and peace and reconciliation remain prevalent. Should Europe continue to insist on justice in particular contexts, where boundaries between victims and perpetrators are blurred and renewed conflict is around the corner? Can the AU tackle impunity itself, while maintaining prospects of real peace?

EU/ AU deals, like the one concluded in 2015 in Valletta, should not be imposed on African states. Instead, joint efforts should be made that can harness the capacities the AU and its constituent members have developed in dealing with local issues. Furthermore, there was a call for European states to be honest in their dealings with Africa and the AU. Altruism may factor into development projects and security programs, but often the motivations behind European initiatives is security at home. Clear communication about self-interest, while trying to find areas of overlap and common goals, will lead to more frank negotiations and, eventually, fruitful cooperation going forward. This will in turn encourage better implementation, engender a sense of ownership and enhance self-sustainability for AU programs, all of which will contribute to sustainability of practices.

Of course, the AU and its members must also reflect on their own deficiencies. The AU must define clearly its role on the continent, especially vis-a-vis Regional Economic Communities. Who should do what in peace and security efforts? What operational capabilities are missing? Who has the political legitimacy to mount and lead peace efforts? The AU has earned an important place for itself on the international stage - now it must answer the questions that remain to ensure that that place is not lost.

On 25 August 2016, the Knowledge Platform hosted a workshop in The Hague, in which learning from the peacebuilding approaches of rising powers was the central theme. The workshop, organized by the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI), fed insights from country and case studies in a range of settings, from Turkey to India and Brazil to South Africa, into new ideas for peacebuilding policy and programming of the EU, UN and other major donors.

Bringing together a diverse group of policymakers, academics and practitioners working in or on rising powers, the workshop encouraged constructive discussions about what the value and pitfalls of differing approaches to peacebuilding are.

PRESUMPTIONS AND FINDINGS

Charles Call, in his overview of the findings of the country and case studies, highlighted a common presumption: rising powers do peacebuilding differently. But is this true? And if so, what are the differences, and do these differences exist between the rising powers as well? The discussions showed that while there are indeed differences in approaches, the distinctions are not black and white.

In Turkey, as Onur Sazak explained, peacebuilding as a concept does not have a static definition. He illustrated the centrality of humanitarian and development assistance to the process of peacebuilding. Where previously, especially before 2002, peacebuilding in Turkey related more to peacekeeping, Turkish peacebuilding efforts currently have a clear ethical motivation and focus mainly on using humanitarian assistance and development assistance to make a difference in the lives of people who are suffering from conflict. This process contributes to a long-standing and long-lasting peace.

Adriana Erthal Abdenur showed how in Brazil, peacebuilding as a concept is more emergent than existing. Ms Abdenur discerned two strands in Brazil-style peacebuilding: the first, observed at the UN, is the technical and bureaucratized discourse. The second encompasses underground and grassroots initiatives, South-South development cooperation and humanitarian assistance. The discussion showed that while non-intervention and demand-driven cooperation underlie Brazil’s conception of peacebuilding, the nature of its peacebuilding works means that these principles are not necessarily always respected in practice.

A crucial insight from South Africa, highlighted by Charles Nyuykonge, is the inclusion of all actors in mediation. In South Africa, the experience with the ANC (“terrorists”), and the 1993-2005 peace talks in Burundi with the involvement of military coup leaders, proved an important element in mediation for peace. For South Africa, the focus is not on the speed of processes of peacebuilding, but on the extent to which they are able to address the challenges of stakeholders.

Coming from a reality in which no international cooperation architecture existed after independence in 1947, peacebuilding in India is still very much a work in progress with much ambiguity. Despite India’s lack of financial resources to contribute to peacebuilding efforts, it has deep expertise and experience with education. Lt. Gen. P.K. Singh noted that India’s history of development, similar to that of other countries requiring assistance, facilitates the transfer of knowledge to these settings. He argued that rising powers have a greater ability to understand local contexts.

COMMON THEMES

In the case and country studies, several themes recurred between the approaches of rising powers. First, peacebuilding for rising powers has a different time horizon – efforts both have a longer duration and are not specifically attached to projects. However, it was noted that longer time horizons sometimes meant that short-term negative consequences were ignored. Secondly, non-conditionality forms the starting point for peacebuilding for many of the rising powers. However, despite this commitment, it was acknowledged that strategic interests continue to impact peacebuilding activities.

Rising powers do not typically have a history of peacebuilding. As a result, there are no crystallized narratives around which bureaucracies and academic circles have developed. There are less hard distinctions between types of peacebuilding, so that broader types of peacebuilding can be implemented.

Demand-driven peacebuilding efforts are another common practice. Linked to this is the importance of listening to local actors, governments and experts in defining what is needed, rather than sending external technical teams to complete needs assessments.

Stemming from different ideas about how international relations should operate, rising powers emphasize deference to sovereignty. National ownership is often seen to supersede local ownership. This encourages equality in the international world order and enhances the developmental aspect of the UN, rather than the militaristic aspect of the Security Council.

TAKEAWAYS

What can we learn from the rising powers’ approaches to peacebuilding? To begin with, traditional peacebuilding actors like the EU and UN must encourage longer-term time horizons for projects. However, the discussions illustrated that short-term negative results from projects with a long time horizon must not be overlooked, otherwise tensions will fester. Continual assessment will stimulate positive change. Furthermore, encouraging the local definition of needs and the enhancement of state capabilities can help traditional peacebuilding actors’ efforts succeed. Finally, by engaging with countries in need as equals, rising powers enable target states to rebuild state structures, and engender a more cooperative and equitable developmental environment between partner countries.

Read more about the Rising Powers in Peacekeeping report here.

During a networking day for Dutch civilian experts, participants had the opportunity to engage with policymakers in the MFA, and connect with each other on their experience and challenges of working in multilateral missions for short periods of time, as well as on practical and substantive questions involved in their day to day work.

The Platform facilitated several of the discussions during this networking day. The opening panel, with P.J. Kleiweg-De Zwaan (Director Security Policy), Gert Kampman (Deputy Director Stabilization and Humanitarian Aid), Jaïr van der Lijn (Senior research fellow Clingendael/ SIPRI) and facilitated by Sergei Boeke (Senior research fellow ICCT), delved into the challenges of measuring and impact of missions, in an era of an increased focus on showing concrete results of interventions. While it is indeed difficult to present immediate results of interventions, more specifically the role of civilian experts in these missions, we should try to steer away from a focus on outputs. Instead we should look into the long term perspective and acknowledging the fact that change generally takes more than the cycle of one mission and is by no means a linear process. The valuable role of civilian experts in these missions was underlined, in terms of their contributions to sustainable peace as well as their important role as linking pin between the MFA and the field.

Various breakout sessions were facilitated by Platform members, focusing on Rule of Law in conflict contexts in European and African regions (The Hague Institute for Global Justice, Clingendael); SSR, accountability and governance with specific inputs from the work of MINUSMA (GPPAC); the specific challenges for gender experts in multilateral missions (IDLO); and related to the role of multilateral missions in protection of civilians (PAX).  

‘Imagine we are 5 years ahead, and minister Ploumen will visit the twelve countries where the ARC projects will be implemented; what will she see, and will she be satisfied with what we have achieved?’ This question was posed during a talk show with the MFA’s special envoy on migration, Bram van Ojik, the MFA’s Director General of International Cooperation, and representatives of NGO’s from South-Sudan, Burundi and Pakistan.

With the talk show, the kick-off meeting of the Addressing Root Causes Fund on Monday the 20^th of June came to an end.

The ARC kick-off, organized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and facilitated by the Platform, marks the start of a unique, five-year collaboration in which the MFA, together with 15 NGO’s and their partners, will work together to address root causes of violent conflict, instability and irregular migration.

Some 180 participants engaged in numerous breakout sessions with the view of getting to know each other, to explore key common challenges for program development under the ARC fund, and to exchange tools and approaches for effective partnerships and adaptive programming.

Progress on themes like rule of law and employment creation in conflict affected areas is often small and incredibly hard to measure. Special attention was therefore paid to the creation of a joint results framework, on which the organizations within ARC, as well as the Ministry, can report to the parliament and the Dutch public.

Jelte van Wieren, the MFA’s Director of Stability and Humanitarian Aid, emphasized in his opening speech: ‘For too long, development aid in Fragile and Conflict Affected States has been approached as if we, development actors, are the drivers on a train going from point of departure to point of destination. But I think we can all agree it has been more like a sailing trip on a boat - or an ark – planning to cross an unpredictable, stormy and dangerous ocean with an uncertain destination’.

To answer Bram’s question, Salome Zuriel, conflict thematic manager at ACORD, emphasized that in fragile contexts, it is hard to predict the extent to which our programs will contribute to stability after 5 years of engagement. The results framework we are about to develop however, might actually provide for the opportunity to attain concrete results in creating employment, enforcing rule of law or increasing physical human security. Today’s kick-off meeting was a first step in that direction.

The Platform hosted an interactive discussion on 23 June 2016 in The Hague, exploring the challenges and opportunities of measuring peace through indexes. The discussion, moderated by Rob Sijstermans of Clingendael, centered around three indexes; the Global Peace Index (GPI) by the Institute for Economics and Peace, the Flourishing Community Index (FCI) by Cordaid and the Fragile States Index (FSI) by The Fund for Peace, outlining the motivations behind their development, difficulties in the process and what these indexes have to offer to policy-making and program development in the field. Camilla Schippa, Director of the Institute for Economics & Peace officially launched the latest Global Peace Index at The Hague Institute for Global Justice the following morning.

Convening a group of practitioners from a range of fields, including the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the financial sector and mediation organizations, the discussion generated important insights into the value and pitfalls of indexing as a measure of peace.

Methodology

The three indexes all encountered questions over methodology. The Global Peace Index, as Camilla Schippa detailed, integrates indicator data from a variety of respected sources, such as SIPRI and various UN agencies as well as analysis from experts working with the Institute. The FSI employs a similar methodology. Conversely, the Flourishing Community Index compiles local community voices. Each approach has strengths and weaknesses that must be dealt with and explained to consumers. A related challenge for the indexes, Nate Haken, Senior Associate of The Fund for Peace explained, is the perception of the results among its target audiences. For the GPI and FSI, the rankings as a final product were controversial at face value. Officials from some states disagreed with the simple numerical comparison of their countries with others they felt were performing worse. A common problem is that consumers get hung up on rankings, failing to understand the indicators and analysis that inform indexes.

Crucial to resolving these concerns is to explain in detail the methodology behind the rankings, and to encourage consumers to delve into the indicators, and make their own comparisons. While each index offers valuable insights into differing indicators of communities, at the local or national level, the practitioners accentuated the need for transparency of process to avoid oversimplification of results. Additionally, argued Rosan Smits, Deputy Head of the Conflict Research Unit of Clingendael, indexes should not be the starting point in identifying watch lists or developing research and policy priorities.

Managing expectations

Expectations among surveyed individuals, practitioners and policy-makers on what indexes can achieve present another challenge. With FCI, explained Roderick Besseling of Cordaid, providing the opportunity for local communities to express grievances created expectations that these could be addressed. Similarly, Haken noted that while the FSI offers valuable insights, it does not offer solutions or practicable measures to address driving factors of conflict. Besseling and Haken both noted that creators of indexes grapple with the purpose of their measurements: is an index a forecasting tool? A grievance collection tool? A need-analysis tool? A tool to evaluate the progress resulting from programs? Without clearly defined goals and objectives, it is difficult to manage expectations and ensure value of indexes.

Main takeaways

The discussion proved that indexes are great advocacy tools, useful for starting the conversation in various fora and spurring deeper research into specific problems and underlying factors. Critical and comparative study of a variety of indexes can encourage more targeted research and policy work and may help to develop accurate early-warning conflict analysis, but should not be the be-all and end-all of measuring peace work. Takeaways for improving the usefulness of indexes were twofold. Firstly, further cooperation and integration of measuring efforts, be they more global indexes or more specific on-the-ground expertise, is crucial to providing the most informed and accurate picture to all stakeholders in the process. Secondly, increasing understanding of both the opportunities that indexes present and their limitations as tools for measuring peace will help all users improve their ability to extract value from the important insights that indexes produce.