THE PEACE NEXUS – SIGNIFICANT OR NOT?

While the concept of the peace nexus is not new, it has gained momentum in the last decade. However, its effectiveness is still in question. Corita Corbijn, Anne Judith Harrop, Marjanne de Haan, and Messina Laurette Manirakiza provide an overview of the peace nexus and assess the achievements, obstacles, and gaps in this approach.

In September 2023, in the Central African Republic (CAR), two factions of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) began the process of disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration, which included their repatriation to Uganda. This transition towards peace was a collaborative and cohesive effort by PAX and Action pour la Promotion Rurale from DRC. The LRA is a Ugandan rebel group led by Joseph Kony.

It has waged a twenty-year-long insurgency in which it has killed tens of thousands of civilians, abducted over twenty thousand children as soldiers, porters, and sex slaves, and displaced over 1.8 million people in northern Uganda. The rebels fled Uganda after failed peace talks in 2006. They passed through South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo before settling in CAR.

Although it may take time for organisations to play a role like the one mentioned above, it highlights the significance of such an approach. ‘It shows that committing to long-term conflict transformation and peace can yield unexpected opportunities,’ Marjanne De Haan says, ‘because we had built trust by integrating former rebels in communities in the DRC-CAR border region over many years. This intervention was unexpected, emphasising the importance of prioritising peacebuilding.’

De Haan is the programme manager of the Dutch-funded Strengthening Civil Courage consortium at PAX. She continues, ‘If you look at the current state of the world, we are not on the right track. However, it depends on whom you ask and how you view this. At PAX, our main concern is the increasing pressure on civic space. Also, I have not looked at statistics or data, but it feels like conflict situations are on the rise. Gaza is demonstrating how extremely complicated it is to effectively address and end violent conflict and how it often implicates and involves us all.’

Multisectoral Approach

The concept of the peace nexus has been utilised for a long time in humanitarian and development efforts. It is not about reallocating resources from one area to another—whether it’s from humanitarian to peacebuilding or humanitarian to development and vice versa. It seeks to address the issue of peacebuilding through coherence, complementarity, and collaboration to address the root causes of conflict over the long term through different approaches.

Corita Corbijn, Sector Specialist in peacebuilding at ZOA, says currently within the INGOs and the donor sector, there is more awareness of the need to include the peace nexus in programming in livelihood, food security, WASH and disaster response. In brief, a multisectoral approach.

‘At ZOA, our definition of the peace nexus is based on how our relief work can contribute to peace and how recovery or development work can contribute to peace. We look at it from different multisectoral angles. The focus is on the peace element and how we approach it. We do not look at it as a single sector but how other sectors can contribute to it and how they can address causes of violence and conflicts,’ she says.

A multisectoral approach offers many opportunities, which include meeting immediate needs while ensuring longer-term investment in addressing the systemic causes of conflict and vulnerability. It also has a better chance of reducing the impact of recurring conflicts and supporting peace, which is essential for development to be sustainable.

According to Corbijn, having a multisectoral approach is vital. Organisations can gain access and work in areas where they could not have been allowed if their focus were only on peacebuilding. It is further beneficial as it allows organisations to engage better with communities. ZOA, CARE Netherlands, and Oxfam Novib’s participation in the Addressing Root Causes of Armed Conflict and Irregular Migration programme was proof of this.

While each organisation had a different programme, components within their approaches towards peacebuilding were complementary. Corbijn believes a multisectoral approach can help organisations gain the trust and interest of communities. This approach also enables them to tackle the root causes of issues, such as land and water interventions.

Interconnected Approach

Furthermore, it allows them to access areas the government may otherwise refuse access to peacebuilding organisations. Conflict is complex and highly localised. It is essential to understand its context and then incorporate peace pathways in development or humanitarian proposals, specifically through livelihood programmes, to foster stronger social cohesion.

Messina Manirakiza, programme officer at KPSRL, says there is a need for an interconnected and multidimensional approach to peacebuilding efforts within the development sector that will address the root causes of conflicts and promote inclusive and holistic solutions. In addition to new emerging ones, existing conflicts defy already established responses to crises. This calls for breaking silos which limits the effectiveness of peacebuilding.

‘But walking the talk remains a challenge. It requires concrete reforms and adjustments in terms of funding and ways of working. This is done by adopting integrated funding approaches that break down silos between humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding efforts or by involving multi-year funding commitments that span different phases of a crisis,’ Manirakiza says.

Such flexible funding mechanisms can be used to enable adaptive programming that can respond to changing circumstances and adjust interventions based on evolving needs and opportunities. Pooling resources from different sources, such as governments, donors, philanthropic organisations, and the private sector, can create a more comprehensive and coordinated response. As can fostering partnerships among governments, NGOs, international organisations, and the private sector.

According to Manirakiza, efforts to leverage diverse expertise, resources, and networks to address the root causes of crises and promote sustainable development should be collaborative. As significant as it is for a successful peace nexus, collaboration does not necessarily translate into an integration of roles by organisations. It can be conducted with each organisation respecting their roles, goals, and objectives.

Challenges

‘While sectors need to work together,’ says Anne Judith Harrop, ‘there are a lot of challenges. Not that we should not do it, but it is not easy. Different organisations have their language; they are all starting from different places. There is quite a lot of work done in building up understanding and relationships to collaborate well with each other.’ Harrop is the Global Technical Advisor at VSO.

Corbijn emphasises the importance of organisations working in cooperation, especially with both national and community-based organisations. ‘These cooperations are crucial,’ she says. ‘At ZOA, especially in areas where we work on peace, we work with national organisations because they have far more knowledge and legitimacy. Together, we identify the roles they play best and how we can come in.

‘We bring the peace element, while others bring the livelihood or governance element. We must work in these kinds of cooperations and consortia. We need other organisations such as PAX that work on advocacy at higher levels, national and international because we see the relevance and room for more cooperation.’

According to Harrop, many organisations lack the technical expertise to mainstream peace nexus programming. ‘Donors commission development programmes without recognising the importance of the humanitarian and peace lens in proposals. This makes it hard to bring in some of the nexus angles in programme designs as these components are unlikely to be funded,’ she says.

That is why, it is significant to build on and address the glaring gaps and apply the Do No Harm principles. These are a leading tool for applying conflict sensitivity which recognises that aid—whether development, peacebuilding, or humanitarian assistance—can support either conflict or peace. When organisations use it in their programming they become more effective, accountable, and efficient.

It supports effectiveness by encouraging organisations to tailor their interventions to the specific contexts in which they are implemented. The principle supports organisations’ accountability by requiring that they respond to any unintentional negative impacts created by their intervention and encourage local voices and priorities in programming.

It reinforces efficiency by anticipating and preventing unintended negative impacts, making plans easier to implement and more supported by local communities. Even amidst the opportunities, organisations recognise the challenge of keeping peacebuilding on the political agenda vis-à-vis issues such as aid and trade. The issue requires more authoritative voices and persuasive arguments to prove the effectiveness of peacebuilding efforts.

De Haan says, ‘There are some convincing arguments to make about keeping up funding for this type of work that goes beyond the moral appeals. Freeing up a lot of money on defence and military spending should match funding for peacebuilding and strengthening civil forces.’

Organisations should define and commit to peacebuilding efforts, provide convincing arguments about their effectiveness, showcase their importance, and offer recommendations for improvement. Cohesive, complementary, and justifiable approaches, if put into practice within peacebuilding programmes, can address the root causes of conflict right up to attaining sustainable peace.

‘For cooperations to work,’ Manirakiza says, ‘organisations need to better redefine their visions and organisational culture regarding learning and partnerships. There is a need to break the silos and build trust with different partners at different levels and recognise the real value.’ Harrop expounds, ‘Contexts shift between crises with opportunities for recovery and stability with risks and vulnerabilities. A good peace nexus programme requires a deep understanding of the context, recognising and responding to changes in that context and the drivers of those changes.’

Conducting the correct analysis, good mapping, knowing who else is working on what, and respecting and, or knowing the responsibilities of the local government are required for complementary approaches, which are vital in peacebuilding. Learning by testing and documenting best practices of peace nexus programming is crucial. These methods encompass the mapping and analysis of a programme’s interaction with a dynamic and constantly evolving environment, as well as other actors, activities, government service providers, and local actors in that environment.