Lesson 5 - Planning and Conducting Peacebuilding

PEACEBUILDING
LESSON
Planning and Conducting
5 Peacebuilding
“Advancing the extension

of State authority and
rebuilding State institutions
in the aftermath of
conflict is crucial to the
sustainability of peace.”
UN Photo #605279 by Evan Schneider.
In this lesson » Lesson Objectives »
Section 5.1 Introduction • Identify the various approaches to peacebuilding

planning.
Section 5.2 Peacebuilding Principles
• Understand the thorough analysis required for
Section 5.3 Planning for Peacebuilding peacebuilding planning.
Section 5.4 Conclusion of Peacebuilding • Know that the best and most effective peacebuilding
Planning planning must include local ownership of the process.
• Comprehend that effective peacebuilding activities

require an integrated strategy.
• Know that all parties involved in peacebuilding activities

need to keep unity of effort primary in their thinking.
• Understand that planning is not the end — continued

reassessment and refinement of the plan are necessary
in peacebuilding activities.
• Appreciate the value of quality measures of effectiveness.
PEACE OPERATIONS TRAINING INSTITUTE
118
LESSON 5 | Planning and Conducting Peacebuilding
A scene from a camp for IDPs known as "Site du Petit Seminaire St. Pierre Claver", in the town of Bangassou, CAR, during the week of
Secretary-General António Guterres visit to the country. The Secretary-General aimed to draw attention to the fragile situation in the
country “that is often far from the media spotlight”. 21 October 2017. UN Photo #738887 by Eskinder Debebe.
Section 5.1 Introduction
“Advancing the extension of State

authority and rebuilding State
institutions in the aftermath
of conflict is crucial to the
sustainability of peace.”
–Peacebuilding in the aftermath of

conflict, Report of the Secretary-
General1
Certain concepts of peacebuilding planning are more
important than others. Johan Galtung’s theories of structural
violence and positive peace are particularly noteworthy. Most
fragile States encounter some type of structural violence that
prevents citizens from achieving an acceptable standard of
1) UN General Assembly and UN Security Council, Peacebuilding in the

Aftermath of Conflict, Report of the Secretary-General, 23 September 2014.
119
living or “positive peace”. This might include laws, cultural norms, deep animosity, and ethnic hatred. The barriers of
structural violence can only be broken down by addressing these deep-seated emotions and attitudes. A peacebuilder
must understand that these barriers may take years, if not decades, to overcome.
Peacebuilders must also recall the relative deprivation theory espoused by Ted Robert Gurr. According to Gurr,
people of a society have expectations of a better life, but quite often the conditions in which they live do not match
their expectations.2 After studying many conflicts, Gurr stated that as long as expectations and physical reality
remain constant, the likelihood of violence decreases. When expectations and real-world living conditions get out
of balance, a society faces a propensity for new or renewed violence. This theory is important for the peacebuilder
because the very presence of peacebuilders in a local society raises expectations. It takes time to make a difference
and improve people’s lives. Here, the old proverb is valid: “Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day; teach a man
to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime.” Peacebuilders must be realistic in both their promises to the local people and
their expectations of what they can accomplish.
Lesson 1 outlined various conflict models, including the hourglass model of conflict resolution (see Figure 1-3
in Lesson 1). Oliver Ramsbotham, Tom Woodhouse, and Hugh Miall authored one of the best textbooks on conflict
resolution.3 Their model outlines the stages that a conflict might follow, including conflict transformation, conflict
settlement, and conflict containment. Conflict transformation can be both good and bad. A conflict can move from
a period of tension to outright violence. Sometimes this might happen quickly. It could also move from conflict
settlement through a peaceful transition to sustainable peace. Peacebuilding is embedded in conflict transformation;
it aims to transform a society in turmoil into a society with sustainable peace and may be done to prevent violent
conflict or transform a society after violent conflict.
Lesson 1 also introduced Michael Lund’s “Life Cycle of a Conflict” (see Figure 1-2 in Lesson 1).4 Here a conflict
might move from a relatively stable peace to an unstable peace, then into violent conflict or crisis. After some form
of diplomacy, the conflict can move into peace enforcement, peacekeeping, or peacebuilding.
This brings us to another important concept: the blending of peacekeeping, peacebuilding, and development.
The UN document United Nations Peacekeeping Operations: Principles and Guidelines (“Capstone Doctrine”) provides
a visual depiction of the relationship between peacekeepers and peacebuilders (see Figure 1-4 in Lesson 1).5 Once
negotiations have advanced to a point where there is some sort of ceasefire or peace agreement, the international
community, be it the United Nations or a regional organization, will determine whether the conflict is ready for
the deployment of peacekeepers. It is important that peacebuilders understand the conditions under which the
peacekeepers deployed to the country/region.
If the mission is under UN auspices, then the peacebuilder must review the Security Council resolution to see if it
falls under Chapter VI or VII of the UN Charter. A Chapter VI resolution passes under the guise of “Pacific Settlements
of Dispute” (i.e. the conditions will be relatively peaceful in nature). All parties to the conflict will have agreed to the
peace agreement, and the presence of peacekeepers is merely an effort to provide international oversight. However, if
the resolution is under Chapter VII, the situation is quite different, as this chapter talks about “threats to international
peace, breaches of peace, and acts of aggression”. In these circumstances, the security situation is not very stable;
therefore, peacebuilders should not rush into a conflict zone. There are huge security risks for peacebuilders who
are not closely tied to the peacekeeping forces. Under these circumstances, peacekeepers generally deploy in larger
2) Ted Robert Gurr, Why Men Rebel (Princeton, NJ, US: Princeton University Press, 1970).
3) Oliver Ramsbotham, Tom Woodhouse, and Hugh Miall, Contemporary Conflict Resolution (Cambridge: Polity, 2005).
4) Michael S. Lund, Preventing Violent Conflict: A Strategy for Preventive Diplomacy (Washington, D.C.: US Institute of Peace Press, 1996).
5) DPKO/DFS, United Nations Peacekeeping Operations: Principles and Guidelines (New York: United Nations, 2008).
120
A wide view of the General Assembly Hall as Secretary-

General Ban Ki-moon (shown on screen) addresses
the Assembly’s meeting on “Strengthening the role
of mediation in the peaceful settlement of disputes,
conflict prevention and resolution”. 13 September
2012. UN Photo #525565 by Eskinder Debebe.
numbers with more advanced weapons systems. In essence, peacekeepers may be enforcing the peace rather than
observing the peace. This is an important distinction to consider when planning a peacebuilding strategy.
If the Security Council passes a resolution authorizing the deployment of peacekeepers, it is mandatory that the
Secretary-General submit a Report of the Secretary-General to the Security Council. This is an important document
for anyone or any organization that might contemplate participating in peacebuilding activities. The Secretary-
General’s report outlines the security conditions and discusses the operational concept in which peacekeepers will
deploy and organize. Peacebuilders who will be working alongside UN peacekeepers should begin their analysis of
peacebuilding by reading these reports. If the UN peacekeeping mission has been around for a while, the United
Nations Secretariat may publish several Reports of the Secretary-General.
Regional organizations that deploy peacekeepers create and release similar reports. The African Union (AU)
publishes reports under the sponsorship of the Peace and Security Council. Likewise, the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) releases reports from its Crisis Response System. These reports provide valuable information
about the conflict and the roles and missions of peacekeepers. It behoves any person or organization to learn as
much about the conflict as possible before engaging in any type of peacebuilding activity.
The time frame and longevity of peacebuilding activities is an important concept as well. Lesson 1 outlined the
linkage between peacebuilders and long-term development. Peacebuilding activities take time — a lot of time (see
Figure 1-4 in Lesson 1). Peacebuilders work as conflict managers by entering conflict zones to help societies rebuild
social structures from the ground up. Often there are no functioning hospitals, school years have been interrupted,
and social organizations that would help a society reconcile social differences are non-existent. Peacebuilders often
begin with little or nothing and must establish or re-establish programmes from the very beginning. There is some
good news, however, because NGOs will often have operated in the country well before violence erupted, and many
of them conduct peacebuilding activities. When the security conditions are ripe, these organizations can fall back on
their work and begin anew.
There is no clear line between when peacebuilding ends and development begins. In fact, many of these efforts
overlap. The status of local government structures is often the best indication of when peacebuilding has ended and
development has begun. Are local government organizations now functioning and guiding the rebuilding efforts? If
they are, perhaps the country is moving into the development stage and progressing towards sustainable peace.
121
Online Access »
Reports of the Secretary-General are readily available on the UN website in several locations:
under either the Secretary-General’s “speeches/reports”, listed in the documents section of the
UN peacekeeping mission, and within the Dag Hammarskjöld Library. Reports are also listed on
the Security Council website at: <www.un.org/en/sc/documents/sgreports/2018.shtml>.
Section 5.2 Peacebuilding Principles

The eight principles discussed below come from multiple sources. Not all books and articles on peacebuilding
discuss principles, but any scholarly work that might aid in understanding and conducting peacebuilding should
have some discussion of peacebuilding principles. The Capstone Doctrine and many documents and statements by
UN leaders provide a good initial set of guidelines. OECD provides another source of principles for consideration
through its extensive review of peacebuilding (conducted by the DAC). Lisa Schirch’s book Conflict Assessment
and Peacebuilding Planning contains another useful list.6 A single standard list of principles by which to conduct
peacebuilding does not exist; therefore, this list is a compilation from several sources:
Peacebuilding Principles
1. Host nation ownership
2. Complex problems – no two are the same
3. Legitimacy
4. Impartiality
5. Unity of effort
6. Transformation
7. Accountability
8. Professionalism
» Host nation ownership
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon devoted much of his tenure as the head of the UN to improving peacebuilding.
At the announcement of the creation of the PBF, he stated:
“Although peacebuilding is a collective effort, involving the

international community, it is the Government of the country
concerned that carries the main responsibility for setting
priorities and ensuring that a peace process can be sustained.
National ownership is the core principle of peacebuilding,
and the restoration of national capacity to build peace must
therefore be at the heart of our international efforts.”7
6) Lisa Schirch, Conflict Assessment and Peacebuilding Planning: Toward a Participatory Approach to Human Security (Sterling, Virginia, US: Kumarian
Press, 2013).
7) UN Secretary-General, “The Secretary-General’s remarks on the launch of the Peacebuilding Fund”, 11 October 2006.
122
Ban Ki-moon’s words highlight the first principle of peacebuilding: host nation ownership. The nation in which
peacebuilding activities are conducted must take ownership of the process and be heavily involved in the planning
and execution of peacebuilding activities. When a country is recovering from a conflict, whether a civil war or a war
with another country, military forces, NGOs, and intergovernmental organizations come and go. If a nation is to
stand on its own and achieve sustainable peace, that nation must be involved in all aspects of peacebuilding. Efforts
are essentially worthless if an organization does not integrate its ideas and projects closely with the host nation.
There are many examples in which schools were built, but there were no teachers, textbooks, or supplies to conduct
education. The same is true for hospital clinics that had no doctors, nurses, or supplies. An organization might
provide resources, but without a plan and a method to sustain the effort, the school or hospital is ineffective.
The NGO charity: water brings clean and safe drinking water to people in developing nations. A 2016 article on
its website demonstrates the principle of local ownership:
“At charity: water we know that building a water project is the

easy part. Keeping clean water flowing over time, however, is a
complex business that requires money, training and innovative
thinking. It’s something we’ve always been committed to. In
some cases, up to 30% of the cost of a charity: water project
goes into training and educating the community about how to
take care of the well after we’re gone. At first, our field partners
start with ownership.”8
» Complex problems – no two are the same
The next principle of peacebuilding is that no two peacebuilding endeavours are the same. It is easy to think
that, as peacebuilders, we have done this before and developed a plan that mimics one done in another nation or
region. Certainly, experience is important, but it is a fallacy to think that one peacebuilding effort can be patterned
along a previous effort. There are vast differences among peoples across the globe. They have different ethnic
backgrounds, different histories, and different cultures. Cultures can vary even among those in one ethnic group.
Laws and the way governments function can also vary widely. The bottom line is that peacebuilders must conduct
thorough analysis even if the peacebuilding activities occur in the same region of the world.
In October 2015, the PBC hosted a working group on lessons learned in UN peacebuilding. A summary of the
report of experts listed one lesson as particularly important for future peacebuilders: “There is no clear one-size-fits-
all-approach, and the building of political institutions must take local developments and conditions into account.”9
» Legitimacy
In 2007, the PBSO conducted a conference that focused on lessons on peacebuilding activities in Afghanistan, the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Iraq, Kosovo, and Sudan. This conference identified the following lesson:
“Establishing legitimacy and ownership from diverse national and international stakeholders requires meaningful
consultations, including outside the national capital.”10 This lesson speaks to the principle of legitimacy.
On the surface, achieving legitimacy might be as simple as passing a Security Council resolution or another
international organization approving an action. That is international legitimacy. Legitimacy, however, must be deeper
8) charity: water, “Building a well is the easy part”, 2016, accessed 24 August 2018.
9) PBC, “Working Group on Lessons Learned Informal expert-level meeting on “Political Institutions”, 20 October 2015.
10) PBSO, “Lessons Learned from Peacebuilding Strategic Frameworks since the late 1990s”, Executive Summary, 19 September 2007.
123
and more attuned to the local population. Every individual affected by peacebuilding activities must see the efforts as
legitimate. Peacebuilding efforts are designed to change situations for the better. If the local people do not see that,
peacebuilding has not achieved legitimacy. The principles of legitimacy and host nation ownership are closely linked.
If the host nation accepts the work of peacebuilders and promotes the work of international civil servants and NGOs,
perhaps the local people will accept the programmes.
The second part of the lesson from the PBSO points to meaningful consultations. Peacebuilders and the host
nation must regularly consult with those affected by the peacebuilding projects. If the project is building a school,
and the local teachers are adequately trained and supplied to perform their work, this effort might go a long way
towards achieving legitimacy. However, if teachers instruct in a language unacceptable to the local people, then they
might not attain legitimacy. Consultation and acceptance are key parts of legitimacy.
» Impartiality
United Nations peacekeepers have long espoused the principle of impartiality. Being impartial does not mean
being neutral. According to the Capstone Doctrine, “peacekeeping operations must implement their mandate without
favour or prejudice to any party.”11 It goes on to say, “peacekeepers should be impartial in their dealings with the
parties to the conflict, but not neutral in the execution of their mandate.”12
Peacebuilders should consider the principle of impartiality for each activity planned. If, for example, the
peacebuilders are recruiting and training local police, those police officers should reflect the ethnic and cultural
make-up of the people with whom they interact. The same is true for doctors, judges, and teachers. Peacebuilding
projects must not favour one group over another. To do so only creates animosity and could sow the seeds of
renewed violence.
» Unity of Effort
Unity of effort is probably the hardest principle to achieve. Many actors participate in the peacebuilding process,
including military forces conducting peacekeeping, the UN headquarters in the country (if there is one), regional
organizations, other nations that are interested in helping, and many different kinds of NGOs. Synchronizing the
efforts of all the various organizations is extremely hard, but it is possible.
Any organization that considers itself a part of a peacebuilding process must know and understand both the lead
organization responsible for peacebuilding and the strategic plan they are following. That lead agency normally is the
host nation, but other organizations such as the UN or another regional organization might take the lead initially until
the host nation is ready to act. As you will see in the UN approach to planning a peacebuilding mission, the strategic
plan is the end product. This plan outlines the goals and focus of the peacebuilding effort. All parties working in
peacebuilding should mould their own plans and programmes according to the strategic plan.
The lead agency’s parent organization starts unity of effort. For example, if the United Nations takes the lead
in a peacebuilding mission, an SRSG is usually in charge of the effort. Normally all UN agencies, including UN
peacekeepers, will follow the guidance of the SRSG. The challenges come from other organizations that want
to participate in peacebuilding in a particular country. NGOs generally have a focused area for their work. For
example, Save the Children focuses on children’s issues, while OXFAM devotes itself to the reduction of poverty. The
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) works in humanitarian relief. Some of these
organizations might have been in the country for years and might find it difficult to adjust their programmes to align
11) DPKO/DFS, United Nations Peacekeeping Operations: Principles and Guidelines (New York: United Nations, 2008), 33.
12) DPKO/DFS, United Nations Peacekeeping Operations, 33.
124
with the strategic plan. Other nations might be willing to help with funding and programmes. Many countries have aid
and development agencies as part of their governments. They also would need to focus their energy, resources, and
programmes in a synchronized manner with the lead agency coordinating the peacebuilding effort.
Time and again, studies and lessons learned about peacebuilding comment on the lack of unity of effort. Many
organizations working in a conflict-affected country respond to their boards of directors and funders. A 2012 report
from the OECD outlines the challenges of unity of effort:
“Many players work in fragile and conflict-affected settings,

seeking to effect change and influence the situation, which
adds additional dimensions of complexity and uncertainty.
Actors may be members of the diplomatic corps or the military;
development and humanitarian agencies or government bodies;
informal power structures or various local groups. These many
actors have different cultures, loyalties, institutional features
and interests, and do not always pull in the same direction.
There are also differences in terminologies, planning cultures,
and approaches between the different agencies on the donor
side.” 13
Any agency or organization that becomes involved in a peacebuilding effort must review and integrate its
activities with the lead organization’s strategic plan. Unity of effort is hard to achieve, so it takes the dedication of
every agency, organization, or party involved to understand and align with the overall plan. Failure to do so may
result in duplication of programmes while other necessary programmes might go unfulfilled. A lack of unity of effort
can also lead to confusion and a loss of legitimacy in the eyes of the local people.
» Transformation
Peacebuilders must understand that they are transforming people’s lives. That process takes time. People may
be reluctant to change, especially if the peacebuilding effort aims to stem or prevent violent conflict. However, once
a violent conflict has occurred, populations will welcome change, though they will also recall the way life was before
the conflict.
Indian peacekeepers serving with UNMISS

plant seedlings in the area around the Level
II Hospital on the mission’s Tomping base.
25 September 2018. UN Photo #778282 by
Nektario Markogiannis.
13) OECD, Evaluating Peacebuilding Activities in Settings of Conflict and Fragility: Improving Learning for Results (Paris: OECD Publications, 2012), 33.
125
Transformation of any society requires an extensive amount of dialogue. What do the local people expect? What
do they want? If this discussion does not take place, questions arise as to what the international visitors are doing
in their country. Transparency is closely tied to transformation. Open discussions help people understand what is
happening and why a transformation is necessary. Transformation must align with the local culture and traditions.
Otherwise, changes might not be accepted.
This brings up several more questions: With whom do peacebuilders engage? Should they only talk to national
or local leaders? What about the people themselves? Are local leaders or national leaders legitimate in the eyes of
the citizens? Many peacebuilders face these dilemmas. Renowned scholar and practitioner of peacebuilding John
Paul Lederach provided an answer and an approach that peacebuilders might consider. In his book Building Peace,
Lederach describes how a peacebuilder might interact with the local population. Figure 5-1, based on the work of
Lederach, depicts the various groups of local people with whom peacebuilders must engage. At the high level, key
leaders in the peacebuilding process will engage with national figures. Such high-level discussions should occur at
the lead agency involved in the peacebuilding effort. In the local community, all peacebuilders can engage with local
leaders. Usually, these are well-respected and admired community leaders. Peacebuilders, however, must keep an
open mind regarding with whom they might engage. Is this leader a detriment to the peace process? Is he/she
someone who has the best interest of the peace process in mind? In the common words of peacebuilders, people
can be enablers of sustainable peace or spoilers to the peace. Knowing who they are might help determine how best
to engage with certain individuals. At this level of engagement, peacebuilders must seek out the most respected
(and legitimate) individuals in a society. Peacebuilders must also engage at the grass-roots level. They should talk to
respected individuals at the village level or even people in the street. Again, transformation takes time and requires
dialogue.
Actors and Approaches to Peacebuilding
Approaches to
Types of Actors
Building Peace
Few
Level 1: Top leadership • Focus on high-level negotiations

• Military/political/religious/leaders • Emphasizes ceasefire
with high visibility • Led by highly visible, single
mediator
Affected Population
Level 2: Middle-Range Leadership

• Leaders respected in sectors • Problem-solving workshops
• Ethnic/religious leaders • Training in conflict resolution
• Academics/intellectuals • Peace commissions
• Humanitarian leaders (NGOs) • Insider-partial teams
Level 3: Grassroots Leadership

• Local leaders • Local peace commissions
• Leaders of indigenous NGOs • Grassroots training
• Community developers • Prejudice reduction
• Local health officials • Psychological work in post-war
• Refugee camp leaders trauma
Many
Source: Recreated based on a model from John Paul Lederach, Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided
Societies (Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace, 1998), 39.
Figure 5-1
126
The right side of Figure 5-1 addresses approaches to peacebuilding. High-level leaders might be involved in
negotiations about peace agreements or ceasefires. These kinds of negotiations should be left to the leaders of
the peacebuilding process. At the local level or mid-range level, Lederach is a strong advocate of problem-solving
workshops. He is really referring to in-depth discussions on defining the problems and working with local people
to develop solutions to those problems. At the grass-roots level, he recommends training people in reconciliation
processes and trauma reduction. These might be peacebuilding programmes by NGOs that specialize in such areas.
» Accountability and Professionalism
The last two principles of peacebuilding — accountability and professionalism — are rather obvious, but
important. Peacebuilding requires a tremendous amount of money. Money often comes from voluntary donors.
The PBF is funded by purely voluntary contributions, as are funds donated to NGOs. Many governments have aid
agencies that provide both relief supplies and fund development projects. Again, these are voluntary contributions.
If peacebuilders want to have a continuous flow of funds, they must not only be professional but also demonstrate
strict accountability on the expenditure of those funds. Any breach in accountability or professionalism may result
in reduced funding. There are far too many incidents of unscrupulous people embezzling donated funds destined
for disadvantaged people. Likewise, there are far too many stories and articles about peacebuilders who use their
positions to advance their own agendas. Sexual exploitation stands out as the most prominent issue. Training on
sexual exploitation is mandatory for all UN peacekeepers. The same should be true for anyone working in a fragile
State.
Section 5.3 Planning for Peacebuilding
“In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are
useless, but planning is indispensable.”
–General Dwight D. Eisenhower, thirty-fourth President of the

United States and Supreme Allied Commander for the invasion
of Europe during the Second World War
Many consider the US military to be expert at planning operations, whether for combat missions or humanitarian
assistance missions. Military war colleges around the world have devoted large parts of their curriculums to planning.
Despite the emphasis on planning, General Dwight D. Eisenhower seemed to think plans were useless. To fully
appreciate this, there is one other military quote to consider. Helmuth von Moltke, the chief of staff of the Prussian
Army from 1857 to 1888, was a prominent military strategist. Military professionals study his thoughts, ideas, and
theories. Moltke famously said, “No plan survives contact with the enemy.”14 In essence, Moltke meant nothing goes
as planned in war. War is a human endeavour against a thinking enemy. Errors pile up. Another famous military
theorist, Carl von Clausewitz, calls this inability to carry out a plan “friction”. To fully appreciate Eisenhower’s quote
is to focus on the last part: “planning is indispensable”. We now know that no plan survives contact with the enemy,
but by thoroughly planning, military leaders can quickly change the plan as necessary, and all leaders can execute
the commander’s orders.
The same is true in peacebuilding: no plan survives the first interaction with the local people. It is hard to predict
how people will react, but a thorough planning process puts peacebuilding in a position to alter the plan to make it
work.
14) Ralph Keyes, “The Quote Verifier”, The Antioch Review, 2006, vol. 64, no. 2, 256–266.
127
This section will explore four methods by which peacebuilders should conduct planning. The first approach
is probably the one used by most peacebuilders — the generic planning process. The Life & Peace Institute (LPI)
created the second approach, which may be useful for NGOs and other smaller actors in peacebuilding. The third is
the UN Integrated Planning Process. Lastly, the “gold standard” approach, called “Design Methodology”, comes from
the US military.
Before any discussion can occur on how to plan for peacebuilding, individuals involved in peacebuilding should
review the principles of peacebuilding covered in Lesson 4. These apply regardless of the planning process used in
peacebuilding.
Approach #1 – The generic method of peacebuilding planning
Peacebuilders can use a generic method of peacebuilding planning when they have only a limited amount of
time. This is not the best approach to planning any peacebuilding programme, but it can work. Lesson 4 described the
evolution of peacebuilding ideas, including several key lines of effort: security, governance, rule of law, infrastructure
rebuilding, economic recovery, and social well-being. Other studies, like that from the USIP, call these focus areas
“frameworks”. In an extensive study of peacebuilding, Dan Smith called these focus areas the “peacebuilding
palette” (see Figure 4-3 in Lesson 4).15 Smith’s approach is that these key areas can be chosen like colours on an
artist’s palette. The US military and NATO use the term “lines of effort” when planning and conducting peacebuilding
programmes. A study of classical military theorists will uncover the term “lines of operations”, which describes how a
military will conduct an attack. The term “lines of effort” evolved in recent years based on lessons learned during the
reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. This term works because it denotes how to focus one’s energies on a
large peacebuilding effort. Where do you focus your money and programmes? Historical studies on a large number of
peacebuilding programmes yielded these six focus areas. They are a good place to begin planning.
Any would-be peacebuilder must conduct a
careful analysis of the conflict before he or she
can pay any attention to these lines of effort.
This can be done only through careful research
and study, which should include the wider region
in addition to the affected country. Paul Collier,

who wrote several books and studies for the
World Bank, articulates that conflicts, especially
violent conflicts, have spillover effects into
neighbouring countries and the surrounding
regions.16
Peacebuilders must ask and answer United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUC)
questions like, how did the conflict unfold? Peacekeepers, assisted by the members of the Democratic Republic
of Congo Armed Forces, arrive in Doi, to monitor the progress in the
Who were the key actors? What is the
implementation of the disarmament agreement signed by the Front
historical background of the people? What did for National Integration to disarm the militia. 27 November 2006. UN
the international community do? Were peace Photo #133141 by Martine Perret.
agreements or ceasefires negotiated? What key
15) Dan Smith, Toward a Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding: Getting Their Act Together: Overview of the Joint Utstein Study of Peacebuilding (Oslo,
Norway: Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2004).
16) Paul Collier, The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done About It (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).
128
Figure 5-2
international mandates have been passed or at least discussed? Many conflict analysis textbooks use the common
approach to analysing a conflict by asking who, what, when, where, and why. The goal of any research and study of a
conflict is to understand, as best as possible, what the local people went through and then try to determine the root
causes of the crisis. Only by solving the root causes will a conflict transform into a more peaceful state.
Several scholars have used a tree analogy to describe conflicts (see Figure 5-2).17 The branches of the tree
represent the things external actors see easily — the effects of conflict. These might be rampant looting, rape, or
killing. It might also be unrest due to unfair or ethnic-oriented policies. The trunk of the tree signifies core problems,
like inequitable land distribution or unfair education policies. The real purpose of any analysis is to get at the root
causes of the problems, represented by the roots of the tree. These causes are often hidden, like the roots, but they
are the lifeblood of both the tree and the conflict. Identifying the root causes is not easy, but it must be done to
develop a good peacebuilding strategy.
In her book Conflict Assessment and Peacebuilding Planning, Lisa Schirch recommends a simple drill: Collect
several people together who are analysing a particular conflict.18 Draw a picture of a tree on the board and ask people
to place cards on the board on what they perceive to be the effects, core problems, and root causes of the conflict.
This will lead to a healthy discussion of the conflict and help in the analysis.
17) Peter R. Breggin, Beyond Conflict: From Self-Help and Psychotherapy to Peacemaking (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1992); Oliver Ramsbotham, Tom
Woodhouse, and Hugh Miall, Contemporary Conflict Resolution (Cambridge: Polity, 2005).
18) Lisa Schirch, Conflict Assessment and Peacebuilding Planning: Toward a Participatory Approach to Human Security (Sterling, VA, US: Kumarian Press,
2013), 132–133.
129
Once planners have a good understanding of the conflict, they can move into the second part of planning a
peacebuilding strategy. The lines of effort need to be analysed in detail as well. What are the security conditions?
Have bad security conditions resulted in displaced people or refugees? Who is providing the security now? Who is
planning to help this situation at a later date (e.g. the UN, the AU, NATO, etc.)?
The same set of questions can focus on governance, infrastructure, economic conditions, rule of law, and social
well-being. An emergent humanitarian crisis could be embedded in social well-being. Security and humanitarian
issues need to be tackled quickly before more life is lost and so peacebuilding can begin in earnest.
Once planners have answered all the questions as best as they can, the next step in the peacebuilding planning
process is to identify the core problems (the trunk of the tree) and develop a framework for addressing these
problems. The lines of effort that emerged from various studies on peacebuilding can be a starting point. The list
might include the key lines of effort identified in many peacebuilding studies. Planners, however, must not have
blinders on, and they must see that the solution set could include another line of effort beyond those six. For
example, government services (like education) might become an additional line of effort. These lines of effort must
in some way contribute to solving the core problems identified earlier in the analysis.
After planners determine the lines of effort, they must establish goals. Several intermediate goals might be
required to achieve an end state in that line of effort. Additionally, an agency must be assigned the lead in each line
of effort. If no one is in charge, there is no coordinated effort to accomplish the goals and therefore no unity of effort.
Security, for example, is usually assigned to the military, particularly UN peacekeepers. They might set goals
such as opening up freedom of movement or training a local military for security purposes. If, for example, the
peacebuilding effort is conducted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, peacekeepers might have to find and challenge
spoilers to the peace process. These could be rebel groups, armed gangs, or criminal organizations. Military forces
usually manage the security line of effort, but their success in establishing a safe and secure environment has a
huge impact on the other lines of effort. Many say that security is the most important line. Without security, other
programmes cannot begin or can only start in a limited way.
In the rule of law line of effort, a country needs effective and non-discriminatory laws to govern society. A
country also needs police to enforce the laws and courts to adjudicate discrepancies and violations of the law.
Correctional institutions are required for those who break the law. Several goals related to creating an effective rule
of law system may arise from a short discussion on one line of effort. Police will need to be recruited, trained, and
monitored until they can operate on their own. Courts need to have effective, impartial judges to hear cases as well
as places to incarcerate violators of the law. Figure 5-3 depicts two possible lines of effort in the overall rule of law
line.
The same process can be done for the other lines of effort. After the initial careful analysis, planning can start.
A full understanding of the conflict can lead to effective solutions. Once these lines of effort have been determined,
each line should have multiple goals or objectives to achieve, such as recruiting an ethnically balanced police force.
Subsequent goals might be to provide quality training to newly recruited police or put trained police officers out on
their beats. Every one of these lines of effort needs to be broken down into achievable goals.
After the goals are created, measures of performance (MOPs) and measures of effectiveness (MOEs) should be
defined. Both of these terms derive their meanings from business models. In business, a “performance measure” is:
130
Rule of Law Line of Effort
Supplemental Goals End Goal
Police
Effective
Police Force
Install Recruit Train Employ
international police police Local police
police
Judicial
Effective
Judicial
System
Install Identify Monitor
international Local Local
judges Judges Judges’
Decisions
Time
Specific identified sub-goals
Figure 5-3
“a quantifiable indicator used to assess how well an

organization or business is achieving its desired objectives.
Many business managers routinely review various performance
measures to assess things such as results, production, demand
and operating efficiency in order to get a more objective sense
of how their business is operating and whether improvement is
required.”19
If we use police recruitment as an example, one MOP might be the number of police recruited and the ethnic or
cultural makeup of those officers.
On their own, MOPs are not enough to fully assess the achievement of a goal. Recruitment numbers are a
good indicator, but they are not the final step in determining if a goal or objective is effective. In business, MOEs
“are intended to provide constructive, definitive indicators of performance.”20 Using the example above on police
recruitment, the MOE might be something like whether the recruited police officers were quality people. Peer surveys
or an assessment of the grades each police officer achieved in his/her training might answer such an indicator.
Needless to say, MOEs are harder to quantify than MOPs. It takes some skill and practise to set good MOEs, yet the
success of this objective or goal is closely tied to both MOPs and MOEs.
Plans need to be continually analysed, evaluated, and changed. If the analysis of a particular goal shows that
the goal is not being achieved, then those who conduct peacebuilding must continue their assessments and either
change the goal or change the approach to achieving the goals. Thus, new MOPs or MOEs should be created.
19) Businessdictionary.com, “Performance measure”, accessed 3 October 2018. Available from: <http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/
performance-measure.html>.
20) Glen B. Alleman, “Measures of Effectiveness (MoE)”, Herding Cats, 15 June 2010. Available from: <https://herdingcats.typepad.com/my_
weblog/2010/06/measures-of-effectiveness-moe.html>.
131
A good example of MOPs and MOEs comes from Peter Drucker, a prominent scholar on business practices.
Drucker said, “Efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is doing the right things.”21 As a peacebuilder, the
first question to ask is, are we doing the right things? Do the local people support the programmes? Do they have
an impact on the overall goal of helping that nation towards sustainable peace? The more difficult question is,
are we doing things right? Doing the right thing might mean creating a quality education system in the country.
Peacebuilders must go to the next step and try to determine if the education is effective — doing things right. That
takes more analysis and creative thinking to measure effectiveness.
This short discussion on MOPs and MOEs might not provide a thorough understanding of the process of how to
evaluate peacebuilding; however, success in conducting peacebuilding operations means thinking through what is
being done and developing creative and effective means to measure the achievement of objectives. Thus, planning
is never done. A peacebuilder must continually review the information gained in the assessment of the peacebuilding
plan and make adjustments along the way.
Approach #2 – LPI’s Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Tool
The LPI model for peacebuilding planning is based on the principles of planning, monitoring, and evaluating
peacebuilding. The concept of continuous learning is central to the process. The model was based on years of study
and practise of peacebuilding with significant input from renowned peacebuilding scholars.
LPI is an international and ecumenical organization that was founded in 1985. Based in Uppsala, Sweden, the
organization has worked on a large number of peacebuilding programmes. It focuses most of its efforts in Africa, but
it has also worked on peacebuilding programmes in Eastern Europe and Asia. Currently, LPI is working extensively
in DRC, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, and Sudan. LPI’s mission “supports and promotes nonviolent approaches to
conflict transformation through a combination of research and action that entails the strengthening of existing local
capacities” to prevent violence, mitigate its effects and rebuild communities after violence has ebbed or come to an
end.22 LPI obtains its funding from multiple sources, but the major part of the organization’s funding comes from
the Swedish International Development and Co-operation Agency.23 In 2015, LPI expended almost $46 million on
peacebuilding programmes.24
LPI has revised its Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Tool (PME&L) (see Figure 5-5) over its
years of experience; the latest working draft debuted in 2011. LPI considers PME&L to be a living document and
continually revises it as more lessons are learned. The structure of the model is based on continuous learning by any
organization involved in peacebuilding. It is also rooted in a results-based management (RBM) philosophy. RBM is “a
management philosophy and approach that emphasizes development results in planning, implementation, learning
and reporting.”25 Essentially, the concept is founded on evaluating results throughout any activity.
Some of the challenges LPI encounters in peacebuilding include:
• “[R]apidly shifting settings that simultaneously demand both immediate action and thoughtful efforts to
deal with key driving forces of conflict or ‘root causes.’”
• “Unexpected new violence[, which] can destroy months or even years of peacebuilding efforts.”
21) Smart Business Trends, “Peter Drucker Quotes”, 26 May 2013. Available from: <http://smartbusinesstrends.com/peter-drucker-quotes-2/>.
22) LPI, “About Life & Peace Institute”, accessed 8 October 2018. Available from: <http://life-peace.org/about/about-us/>.
23) LPI, “Funding and Partners”, accessed 8 October 2018. Available from: <http://life-peace.org/about/funding-2/>.
24) LPI, 2015 Annual Report (Uppsala, Sweden: Life & Peace Institute, 2016).
25) Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), RBM Handbook on Developing Results Chains. The Basics of RBM as Applied to 100 project
examples (Ottawa: CIDA, December 2000), 5.
132
• “[T]he building of relationships of trust — phenomena that are not easily measured in objective and
quantitative ways.”26
LPI’s peacebuilding planning and management concept is a good tool for organizations that are not the lead
organization in a peacebuilding effort. The entire process focuses on successful peacebuilding programmes that bring
about positive change. Like the previous approach to peacebuilding, LPI’s approach also requires a great deal of
dialogue and local ownership.
Like the generic process outlined previously, the LPI approach also begins with a thorough analysis of the
situation. LPI’s tool defines conflict analysis as a “systematic study of a given conflict with the purpose of reaching a
better understanding of the causes of the conflict and the societal changes brought about by it. Conflict analysis is
not an end in and of itself, but rather serves as a basis for developing conflict transformation strategies.”27
LPI provides two example models of conflict analysis. These two models can be done separately or together,
and they complement each other in many ways. The first model looks at problems, actors, and dynamics. A broad
analysis of the conflict identifies potential problems, which are incompatibilities between actors.
Actors can be individuals or groups of people, such as political parties, the national government, State security
forces, refugees or displaced people, or even criminal organizations or non-State militia groups. When analysing the
actors, questions need to be asked and answered. What are the goals of the group(s)? What is their composition or
how are they organized? What actions have they taken to achieve their goals? How do they use power to influence
the situation?
After studying the actors, move on to some of the perceived problems. Again, a series of questions may help one
understand what is happening. Are there discrepancies between majority and minority groups? What is preventing
people from achieving their true potential? Do government or group policies exist that prevent a group from living a
meaningful life? What are the economic issues? Is there a lack of respect for human rights or effective rule of law?
Only through a thorough analysis of the conflict can we sort out the problems, actors, and dynamics.
Conflicts are not static; they are always changing. Actors position themselves to gain or maintain power. Power
can take many forms. Certainly, engaging in violent conflict is one form of trying to influence power. Another form of
power might be structural. Through programmes, policies, and laws, governments or groups can exert power.
Another analytical approach, provided by LPI’s planning tool, is to look at a conflict from personal, relational,
structural, and cultural perspectives. This is depicted in Figure 5-4.
The personal perspective of this model has two aspects. People have attitudes that influence their behaviours.
Peacebuilders should recognize that attitudes can and do change. This, in turn, affects their behaviours.
The relational dimension is one step beyond the personal. It is that aspect of society where people have face-
to-face interactions on a regular basis. This could be a workplace, school, local business, or market. People develop
relationships with others every day in common settings.
The structural dimension refers to how a society is organized. It goes beyond family and friends and extends to
the systems that make a society function. It refers to who has power and what policies and programmes organized
by a society are part of the structural dimension.
26) LPI, LPI’s Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (PME&L) Tool (Uppsala, Sweden: Life & Peace Institute, March 2011), Working Draft for
Application, 10.
27) LPI, LPI’s PME&L Tool, 14.
133
LPI’s Four Dimensions of Change
Cultural
Structural
Relational
Personal
Figure 5-4
The cultural dimension may be even broader than structural. Years of interaction among peoples create cultural
patterns. In his book for USIP, Culture and Conflict Resolution, Kevin Avruch defines culture as “an evolved constituent of
human cognition and social action.”28 Avruch goes on to say, “culture is a derivative of individual experience, something
learned or created by individuals themselves or passed on to them socially by contemporaries or ancestors.”29
This model is similar to Marie Dugan’s “nested theory of conflict”. According to Dugan, conflicts can be nested
from the issue-specific level to three other levels: relational, sub-structural, and structural.30 The issue-specific level,
like the personal level, is the easiest to solve. The solutions become more challenging higher up the chart. Each
affects the other. Additionally, the higher up you go, the longer it takes to influence change, yet every little bit helps.
Again, relationships are dynamic and can change quickly. Therefore, change at the personal level can affect the
relational, then the structural, and finally the cultural.
LPI’s analytical approach leads to a mapping process where relationships are organized, drawing out information
like how a society operates. This mapping exercise includes “who influences who”. All this comes together the more
you study and comprehend the overall situation.
Once planners obtain a fairly good understanding of the conflict, the PME&L process calls for creating theories
of change: “Conflict transformation aims essentially at bringing about social change. Peacebuilders work towards
changing a given, often violent, situation into a less violent more peaceful solution.”31 Theories of change are based
on assumptions on how to go about changing societies for the better. These theories are often simply hypotheses
that shape programmes designed to help people both understand and change the nature of the conflict. These
assumptions (based on a good analysis) lead to visions of success, which are essentially clear pictures of what the
organization wants to do with their engagement. The purpose of a vision of success is to look into the future and
determine what the society will look like after the programmes are instituted.
28) Kevin Avruch, Culture and Conflict Resolution (Washington D.C.: US Institute of Peace Press, 1998).
29) Avruch, Culture and Conflict Resolution, 3–5.
30) Marie A. Dugan, “Nested Theory of Conflict”, Leadership Journal: Women in Leadership Sharing the Vision, 1 July 1996, 9–20.
134
The next step in the process is to develop results chains, which are logically linked chains of activities where
activities lead to planned results.32 Results chains are a roadmap to activities that lead to visions of success.
LPI recognizes the principle of ownership: “One of the best ways to develop a theory of change for your project/
programme is to do it in participatory group sessions (involving important stakeholders).”33 Local people will more readily
accept the programmes offered if they were involved in the discussions for solutions. Many professional negotiators
stress that solutions obtained by the conflict participants last longer than solutions presented by an outsider. Not only
do these brainstorming sessions with members from different groups create solutions that all can accept, but it also
helps each group understand the other, thus breaking down barriers to conflict. These theories of change can then be
used to brainstorm further and develop a vision for success and a results chain to achieve that success.
As previously mentioned, LPI’s PME&L tool is based on RBM (see Figure 5-5). Projects and programmes are
devised based on careful analysis and working with local populations. In devising these programmes, planners
should keep in mind that each of these efforts must align with the vision of success. Each programme should be a
stepping stone on the results chain that leads to a self-sustaining, stable society. At this step of the process, planners
should be thinking of what LPI calls “indicators”. According to the PME&L Tool, “An indicator is a quantitative or
qualitative factor or variable that provides a simple and reliable means to reflect and monitor the changes connected
to the intervention.”34 Evaluation should follow the SMART acronym.
The final step in the planning process is to develop a baseline study. The baseline study will describe the conflict
setting before the intervention. It is grounded on the initial assessment and then describes the vision of success or
the desired end state. The study will then describe the various programmes and activities planned. Indicators or data
need to be collected to identify the conditions, attitudes, and issues faced when the intervention began. This baseline
provides a basis for analysis once the programmes commence and monitoring begins.
The final part of the peacebuilding tool is monitoring and learning. As stated at the beginning of this section,
learning is embedded in LPI’s approach. However, at this stage of the process, monitoring is equally important.
Monitoring allows key leaders (and funders) to track transformation changes and measure progress. This measurement
is conducted using the indicators developed earlier. Monitoring is a continuous process. If a good baseline study was
performed, the monitoring allows for a comparison to the baseline to track how activities are progressing. Equally
important is making sure the activity supports the theories of change and visions of success.
There are several methods of monitoring that could be used in a peacebuilding activity. Programmes can collect
statistical data, such as the number of patients served or the number of training programmes conducted. They
can also collect data from questionnaires. LPI’s approach even recommends a storytelling method. This could be a
written or videotaped record of people involved in the activity. LPI also recommends that a daily journal is kept on
each project. Journals should include both specific data and self-reflection on daily activities. Over time, this journal
approach might prove to be a rich source of information.
LPI also recommends that programmes conduct self-assessments. Often, project managers can be more critical
of their own efforts than the efforts of their employees. Self-assessments should also review the baseline study and
the theories for change and visions for success. Managers should not be too enamoured with their own projects but
rather keep an open mind on where the transformation is going. Is the project contributing to the overall positive
transformation strategy? The final aspect of LPI’s approach is to gather lessons learned. Learning is a continuous
process in the PME&L toolkit.

34) Church and Rogers as quoted in LPI’s PME&L Tool, 43.
135
Figure 5-5
In a recent report on its work in Somalia, LPI added a new dimension to its peacebuilding planning by adding
Participatory Action Research (PAR) to its PME&L tool.35 The PAR approach reaffirms the local ownership principle
of peacebuilding discussed earlier. Furthermore, “PAR in conflict transformation focuses on addressing conflicting
relationships at their root — bringing conflicting sub-clans and neighbouring clans to the negotiating table in open
dialogue — stressing inclusion and sustained engagement, and seeking solutions for local conflicts at the lowest
level in order to address the underlying conflict drivers.”36 Essentially, PAR encourages peacebuilders to include local
leaders in every aspect of the PME&L tool.
In March 2015, LPI peacebuilders worked with local people from the towns of Jowhar and Mahaday, Somalia,
which are north of Mogadishu. Working with 195 clan members (47 clan elders, 36 youth, 26 men, 20 religious
leaders, 24 local administration personnel, 23 women, and 19 civil society representatives),37 stakeholders agreed to
form a peace council to deal with many inter-clan issues.38 In another area in Somalia, LPI peacebuilders used the PAR
method to reach a similar peace agreement between two warring clans. The peacebuilders compared surveys from
the baseline study and post-intervention that showed favourable support for the peacebuilding efforts. One woman
from the Somali region of Hiran stated, “There are established relations between clans as a result of dialogues and
community members can now move freely through other clan boundaries.”39
35) LPI, Participatory Action Research (PAR): A Tool for transforming Conflict: A case study from south central Somalia (Uppsala, Sweden: Life and Peace
Institute, 2016).
36) LPI, PAR, 14.
37) “Civil society” is a relatively new term emerging in the peacebuilding field. The term “civil society organizations” (CSO) is a broader term than “NGOs”,
as it includes peacebuilders or aid workers from other agencies beyond NGOs. According to the World Bank (2016), “CSOs include NGOs, trade
unions, faith-based organizations, indigenous peoples movements, foundations and many others.”
38) LPI, PAR, 18.
39) LPI, PAR, 32.
136
Food aid, sent from Uganda via South Sudan, is distributed to IDPs living in southeastern Central
African Republic, including the towns of Gambo, Pombolo, Rafai, and Zemio. 1 August 2018. UN
Photo #775401 by Herve Serefio.
Approach #3 - United Nations Integrated Mission Planning Process
The United Nations integrates peacebuilding into its peacekeeping missions. This certainly was the case for four
of the six countries on the 2016 Peacebuilding Agenda (i.e. Sierra Leone, Liberia, Burundi, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau,
and the Central African Republic). In many ways, peacekeepers in those countries were either doing peacebuilding
work or working alongside peacebuilders from other organizations. The UN started to embrace peacebuilding
alongside peacekeeping years ago. The Brahimi Report was an internal review of peacekeeping. Besides making
numerous recommendations to improve UN peacekeeping, Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi strongly recommended
integrating peacekeeping and peacebuilding. The Brahimi Report recommended the UN develop “a plan to strengthen
the permanent capacity of the United Nations to develop peace-building strategies and to implement programmes in
support of those strategies.”40
In 2009, the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and Department of Field
Support (DFS) released A New Partnership Agenda: Charting a New Horizon for Peacekeeping, also called the “New
Horizons report”.41 The report focused on improving UN Peacekeeping, but it also recommended that peacekeepers
also perform peacebuilding tasks. In a European Institute interview, Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping
Jean-Marie Guéhenno stated, “Nowadays, UN peacekeeping no longer means just patrolling ceasefire lines but
frequently involves using military force and starting the work of nation-building to restore countries devastated by
internal conflicts.”42 The New Horizons report said, “UN peacekeepers play an important role building peace after
conflict.”43 The report went on to stress that UN peacekeepers should include immediate peacebuilding priorities in
their planning and execution of peacekeeping missions. These priorities were:
40) UN General Assembly and UN Security Council, Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations, A/55/305–S/2000/809, 21 August 2000, 8.
41) DPKO, A New Partnership Agenda: Charting a New Horizon for Peacekeeping (New York: United Nations, 2009).
42) Jean-Marie Guéhenno, “Contemporary Peacekeeping Is State-Building: The UN Embraces ‘Robust Peacekeeping’, Including Use of Force”, European
Affairs, vol. 7, no. 1-2, Spring/Summer 2006.
43) DPKO, A New Partnership Agenda, 22–23.
137
• Support for basic safety and security;
• Support for political processes;
• Support for the provision of basic services;
• Support for restoring core government functions; and
• Support for economic revitalization.
These key areas of focus for UN peacekeepers are also the same areas discussed in Lesson 4 and the generic
approach to peacebuilding planning. Reports of the Secretary-General on almost any peacekeeping mission reference
political and governmental developments, security initiatives, restoration of basic services by UN peacekeepers, and
economic stimulus programmes. The 2012 United Nations Peacekeeping: Year in Review highlights a programme in
the United Nations-African Union Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) called Community-based Labour-Intensive
Projects (CLIPs).44 Unemployment is high in the Darfur region, so peacekeepers developed a programme that, over
the course of three months, trains people from the region in masonry, painting, and electrical work.
Most recently, a UN High-Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO) recommended that the UN
embrace the term “peace operations”, stating:45
“The term United Nations peace operations used in the

present report embraces a broad suite of tools managed by
the United Nations Secretariat. Those instruments range from
special envoys and mediators; political missions, including
peacebuilding missions; regional preventive diplomacy offices;
observation missions including ceasefire and electoral missions;
to small technical-specialist missions such as electoral support;
multi-disciplinary missions both large and small drawing on
civilian, military, police personnel to support peace process
implementation.”46
Even before these reports were published, DPKO had begun moving in the direction of improved peacekeeping
and peacebuilding planning. The Capstone Doctrine, published in 2008, marked the first time the Secretariat officially
discussed Integrated Mission Planning. The integrated approach acknowledges that “successful recovery from conflict
requires the engagement of a broad range of actors, including national authorities and the local population, in a long-
term peacebuilding effort.”47
The integrated planning approach ensures that all UN actors share a vision and focus on the strategic objectives
outlined by the Security Council. The Integrated Mission Planning Process (IMPP) draws on all the resources and
expertise within the UN System to conduct thorough planning for a Security Council-authorized mission. The IMPP
starts with a thorough assessment of the situation, which UN agencies compile. The Department of Peace Operations
(formerly DPKO), DFS, now the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (formerly DPA), the Office for
the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), and other UN agencies participate in the planning process as
necessary. The World Health Organization (WHO), the World Food Programme (WFP), and the UN High Commissioner
44) DPKO, 2012 United Nations Peace Operations: Year in Review (New York: United Nations Department of Public Information, 2012), 16.
45) UN General Assembly and UN Security Council, Report of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations on uniting our strengths for peace:
politics, partnership and people, A/70/95-S/2015/446, 17 June 2015.
46) UN General Assembly and UN Security Council, Report of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations, 20.
47) DPKO/DFS, United Nations Peacekeeping Operations, 53.
138
for Refugees (UNHCR) could also be part of the integrated
planning team.
The Capstone Doctrine stipulates that peacekeeping
planners need to be aware that other agencies (both inside and
outside the UN) also actively conduct peacebuilding planning.
UN planners should collaborate with other agencies in their
planning efforts to ensure a thorough understanding of the
conflict.
Since the publication of the Capstone Doctrine, integrated Alain Le Roy, Under-Secretary-General for
planning has come a long way in its documentation. In June Peacekeeping Operations, addresses the Security
Council meeting on practical steps to improve the
2012, the UN published a Planning Toolkit. That booklet was
preparation, planning, monitoring and evaluation,
followed a year later in April 2013 with the Policy on Integrated and completion of peacekeeping missions. 5 August
Assessment and Planning. The Secretary-General released 2009. UN Photo #406130 by Devra Berkowitz.
the Integrated Assessment and Planning (IAP) Handbook in

December 2013.
The Policy on Integrated Assessment and Planning describes the “minimum and mandatory requirements for
the integrated conduct of assessments and planning in conflict and post-conflict settings where an integrated UN
presence is in place or being considered.”48 According to the policy, this process must be used when the Security
Council or General Assembly approves the use of a UN Country Team (UNCT), a multidimensional peacekeeping
operation, or a field-based political mission.49
The policy lists several guiding principles for UN engagements. Most are UN-specific, focusing on broader UN
policies, but a few warrant mentioning. Two principles that closely align with the principles outlined at the beginning
of this lesson include flexibility and national ownership. Flexibility recognizes that no two missions are the same
and that conditions on the ground are constantly changing. National ownership of any UN effort in a conflict-ridden
country is an essential condition according to the policy. The other principle worth mentioning is risk assessment. In
the past, far too many well-intentioned UN employees were sent into harm’s way without a good risk assessment.
These lessons resulted in the creation of the UN Department of Safety and Security. This department may be part of
the integrated planning team or may review the overall UN approach when planning is completed.
The first step, much like the other approaches, begins with a thorough assessment. According to the UN policy,
“the purpose of a Strategic Assessment is to bring the UN political, security, development, humanitarian, and human
rights entities together to develop a shared understanding of a conflict or post-conflict situation … and to propose
options for UN engagement.”50 Strategic assessment is undertaken only with the approval of the Secretary-General,
the Executive Committee on Peace and Security, or an integrated task force conducted under the supervision of a UN
Director. The policy also states the strategic assessment should draw on and complement other analytical processes
conducted by other UN agencies.
When the decision is made to conduct integrated assessment and planning, the UN forms an Integrated Task
Force (ITF). Depending on the crisis, ITF members generally come from DPO, DPPA, and OCHA. Other UN agencies
may join the team as needed. If a UNCT exists for the nation being studied, it will certainly send a member to the ITF.
48) United Nations, Policy on Integrated Assessment and Planning, United Nations Integrated Steering Group, 9 April 2013, 2.
49) Field-based political missions could have a peacebuilding component.
50) United Nations, Policy on IAP, 4.
139
A UN-conducted strategic assessment is designed to present a shared analysis of the conflict, identify main priority
objectives, and identify strategic options for senior leaders to present to the Security Council. There is no set timeline
for conducting the assessment, but the IAP Handbook calls for two to three months for its completion. The process
begins with a review of existing UN reports on the crisis. This could include Security Council resolutions, Reports of the
Secretary-General, United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF), poverty reduction reports and papers,
post-conflict needs assessments,51 PBC reports, and any other UN documents. Additionally, the Strategic Assessment
should consider reports by other governments, think tanks, human rights organizations, and academic institutions.
After a thorough analysis of all relevant information, the ITF makes a field visit to the country or region. In
these field visits, the ITF begins informal coordination with the host nations affected by the conflict/situation. When
the field visit is finished, the ITF prepares the draft assessments. The draft assessment should include the following
broad sections:
• Executive summary;
• Background and objective of the strategic assessment;
• Key conflict factors;
• Analysis of priority objectives;
• Existing capabilities and an analysis of risks and opportunities; and
• Strategic options for the United Nations.52
The key part of the strategic assessment is an articulation of the objectives that must be accomplished by any
UN effort. Once the ITF drafts the objectives, they are analysed against their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,
and threats (SWOT). The IAP Handbook recommends that the SWOT analysis be put into a table, as depicted in Table
5-1.53
Table 5-1: Sample SWOT Analysis of Priority Objective54
Priority objective: Build local security capability

Strengths of the United Nations Opportunities for United Nations and non-United Nations
actors
• Some operational capacity in UNCT and field • Regional organization with readily available
missions expertise, experience, and funding
• Expertise and experience of departments, agencies, • Capacities and mandates of government authorities
or funds and bilateral actors (e.g. on-going capacity-building
• Standards, values, and instruments, including on programme jointly organized by donors, regional
human rights organization, and government)
Weaknesses of the United Nations Threats to the priority objective
51) The Post-Conflict Needs Assessment is a joint study by the United Nations and the World Bank. The assessment is led by national authorities with
consultation with the UN and the World Bank. This assessment helps find financial donors to support post-conflict needs.
52) DPKO, Integrated Assessment and Planning Handbook (New York: United Nations, 2013), 22.
53) DPKO, IAP Handbook, 45.
54) Table recreated from DPKO, IAP Handbook, 45.
140
• Lack of funding for programmes • Rebel group outside of peace agreement

• Duration of necessary implementation • Shift in power relations
• Lack of fit with mandates of departments, agencies, • Other priorities of donors and beneficiaries
or funds
• Lack of available human resources, institutions,
budgets
• Likelihood of success low
This approach will allow the team to develop options for UN engagement. The options provided in the strategic
assessment are critical to this analysis. The options articulate how the UN might go about achieving those priority
objectives.
Once the strategic assessment is complete, multiple UN agencies are briefed on its contents. Reviews by DFS,
the Department of Safety and Security, and the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions
(ACABQ) are critical. A member of the ITF often comes from DFS. Their role is to determine if the options provided
are logistically feasible. The ACABQ is the key budgetary element of the UN, and their role is to determine if the
options presented are fiscally supportable. The Department of Safety and Security takes a hard look at the risks for
the deployment of UN personnel.
After a thorough review within United Nations headquarters (UNHQ), the ITF briefs key leaders within the
UN System and recommends an option. Once that option is determined, the team begins work on a Report of the
Figure 5-6
141
Secretary-General. If a peacekeeping mission is recommended, DPO conducts its own planning to refine a concept of
operations for the mission.55 This often requires more host country visits. DPO will also begin initial discussions with
troop-contributing countries for military and police organizations. If the recommendation is for a political mission,
DPPA conducts detailed internal planning. The result is a Report of the Secretary-General.
For peacekeeping and political missions, the Report of the Secretary-General goes to the Security Council for
approval. Member States on the Council critically analyse the report, followed by debates and discussions. If the
Security Council deems the Secretary-General’s proposal acceptable, it will write and vote on a Security Council
resolution. Once approved by the Council, the Secretariat moves from planning to implementation of the resolution.
At this point, the Secretary-General has a tremendous amount of work to do to deploy key leaders, peacekeepers,
and a UNCT. Consultations take place with key Member States for the selection of a well-qualified SRSG and other
representatives that will fill out the UNCT. Figure 5-6 outlines a sample UNCT. Troop contributor meetings are held
at UNHQ in New York, and nations can volunteer military and police for participation in the field mission. The UN
attempts to deploy the UNCT and peacekeepers quickly, but this issue has been a point of concern for many years.
It often takes three months to get people on the ground.
While this integrated planning is being conducted, the ITF remains focused on the effort. UNCT members join the
ITF upon their selection. Finally, when the UNCT moves to the targeted country, it takes over the tasks of continued
planning. The strategic objectives are the key focus areas for planning. The IAP Handbook requires the ITF and the
UNCT to develop an Integrated Strategic Framework. According to the UN Policy on Integrated Assessment and
Planning, the Strategic Framework will include a vision, shared objectives, and the means through which the UNCT
will carry out the guidance from the Security Council and the Secretary-General.56 The Strategic Framework will
include the monitoring and reporting methods to track the achievement of the strategic objectives. The handbook
explains that the Strategic Framework is a “living” document that is subject to change.
One of the tools recommended by the IAP Handbook is the creation of thematic working groups within the UNCT.
Generally, these working groups are aligned with the strategic objectives outlined in the strategic assessment and as
modified by the Security Council resolution and guidance from the Secretary-General.
Thematic working groups will break down their objectives into sub-objectives. Each objective will be analysed to
develop an expected outcome and methods to assess the progress in reaching that outcome. Workgroups could focus
on issues like security, refugees and IDPs, governance, health, education, and so on.
The UN Planning Toolkit published in 2012 provides some guidance for components and working group planning.57
It explains a Results Framework, which includes analysis of expected outcomes and it determines success indicators.
These indicators should be qualitative or quantitative in nature and should be the guide by which assessments are
made to determine whether strategic objectives or sub-objectives are being achieved. An indicator is defined as
“a measure, preferably numeric, of a variable that provides a reasonably simple and reliable basis for assessing
achievement, change or performance. A unit of information measured over time that can help show changes in a
specific condition.”58
The Planning Toolkit provides numerous examples of what to do and what not to do as well as examples from
previous missions. Again, the acronym SMART describes these indicators. Many of the same lines of effort (security,
55) DPKO was reorganized into the Department of Peace Operations as of 1 January 2019.
56) United Nations, Policy on IAP.
57) DPKO, Office of Rule of Law and Security Institutions, Planning Toolkit (New York: United Nations, 2012).
58) DPKO, Planning Toolkit, 79.
142
governance, economic recovery, rule of law, and social well-being) described earlier in this chapter are broken down
into sub-objectives. For example, one of the sub-objectives under security is the protection of civilians. Indicators
include the number of casualties among local civilians, the number of injuries to returning IDPs or refugees caused by
landmines or explosive remnants of war, and local people’s perception of safety due to violence or landmines.59 Some
of these indicators can be measured quite easily, but
others, like the perceptions of people, need additional
work. Surveys and face-to-face communication are a
good way to assess these kinds of indicators.
Over time, these indicators provide results on
whether strategic objectives are being met. The
Planning Toolkit clearly articulates that the UN
is not the only agency working to help a country
recover from conflict. Nations often have their own
programmes, as do other international organizations,

other nations, and NGOs. The Planning Toolkit Oscar Fernandez-Taranco, UN Assistant Secretary-General for
contains an entire section about building relationships Peacebuilding Support, moderates the high-level interactive
dialogue on peacebuilding and sustaining peace. 24 April 2018.
and partners. While the term “unity of effort” is never
UN Photo #758828 by Eskinder Debebe.
mentioned in any of the documents, it is implied that
all peacebuilders must work together towards the achievement of strategic objectives.
Peacebuilders must be reminded that the Integrated Strategic Framework is a “living” document that must be
adjusted over time. The working groups from time to time must look back at the strategic assessment and evaluate
it based on what is happening on the ground at that moment. Is further research and analysis required? What
adjustments must be made to the Integrated Strategic Framework, the strategic objectives, and the sub-objectives?
Feedback from all sources must be taken into account, and adjustments need to be made. Again, no plan survives
contact with the local people.
From time to time, usually directed by the Security Council, new Reports of the Secretary-General are developed
and submitted to the Council. Normally the UNCT develops the draft version of this document and submits it to
UNHQ. For peacekeeping missions, DPO does the final drafting of the Report of the Secretary-General before
gaining approval from the Secretary-General. For political missions, DPPA completes the Report. Once approved, the
Report is sent to Security Council Member States for review. These Reports of the Secretary-General are critically
important. First, the Reports keep the Security Council abreast of a mission. If a mission is up for renewal by the
Council, it is mandated that a Report of the Secretary-General be completed. Secondly, the Report is used to make
recommendations for adjustments in the mission. If a UN mission is in the drawdown phase, these reports keep the
Security Council members informed.
Recall from Lesson 3 that the United Nations has both the PBC and the PBSO. The Assistant Secretary-General for
Peacebuilding Support can commit up to $3 million in the category of IRF. These funds support programmes of six to
18 months in duration and are designed to jump-start the peacebuilding process in a post-conflict situation. More funds
are available under the PRF, but to obtain these funds, the PBC must accept the country as placed on the Peacebuilding
Agenda. To be eligible for the Peacebuilding Agenda, the country must submit a Peacebuilding Priority Plan. Both the
PBC and the PBSO review this plan. If the Commission approves of the plan, then the country will be placed on the
59) DPKO, Planning Toolkit, 131.
143
Peacebuilding Agenda. Additional funds will then be made available to the country for peacebuilding projects in four
key areas — implementation of peace processes, building or strengthening national capacity to promote coexistence
and conflict resolution, economic recovery, and re-establishment of essential administrative services. There is no limit
to the funding from the PBC, but projects are considered when they can be completed in 18 to 36 months. Funds from
the PBC can be used in conjunction with an existing peacekeeping mission. Requiring the country to submit its own
strategic plan ensures local ownership.
Approach #4 – Design Methodology
This method of planning for a peacebuilding mission was adapted from business models by the US Army when it
faced nation-building requirements in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It is now an accepted practice among all services
within the US military as well as the militaries of several NATO nations. Various military academic institutions teach
it as a method to help plan activities in fragile and failed States.
The US military and the militaries of many other nations have created a fairly detailed and effective planning
process for military operations over the years. The US military calls this the “Joint Operations Planning Process”.
Similarly, NATO calls this the “NATO Planning Process”. These processes are used when planning military operations.
They are most effective when planning high-intensity force-on-force combat operations, but they can adapt to other
situations as necessary. The US used its process quite effectively for planning and conducting military operations
invading both Afghanistan and Iraq. However, the process was not as effective in planning the nation-building
aspects in both these countries.
The US Army turned to certain business models to consider how to approach nation-building activities. One
of the most prominent scholars on the topic of business planners was economist Herbert Simon, who studied and
analysed decision-making. He came to refute the traditional “rational decision-making” models. Simon expanded
his studies away from economics and began to study other disciplines, including psychology, political science,
administrative theory, philosophy, and computer science. Simon believed that humans want to make the best rational
decisions but are limited in their abilities to do so. The human mind can only take in and cognitively process so much
data.60 According to Simon, “actual human rationality-striving can at best be an extremely crude and simplified
approximation to the kind of global rationality that is implied by game theoretical models.”61 In essence, Simon said
that the human brain is not capable of processing as much data as computers. He thought the human mind, which
is inextricably linked to human decision-making, has its own historical experiences, personal biases, habits, values,
and knowledge as well as the environment in which the decision is made. All this limits a human’s ability to make a
rational choice.
Another of Simon’s ideas is that humans are not capable of pure rational choice. He said, “in most global models
of rational choice, all alternatives [solutions] are evaluated before a choice is made. In actual human decision
making, alternatives are often examined sequentially. We may, or may not, know the mechanism that determines
the order of procedure.”62 Because of the human brain’s inability to fully analyse solutions, Simon came up with the
term “satisfice”, which is a combination of the words “satisfy” and “suffice”. In decision-making parlance, the term
simply means “good enough”. Perhaps it is not the best solution, but based on the time available, the situation in
which the decision is made, the complexity of the problem, and the information available, a good-enough decision is
probably the best a decision maker can hope for. This is certainly an appropriate way to look at decision-making in
60) Behooz Kalantari, “Herbert Simon on Making Decisions: Enduring Insights and Bounded Rationality”, Journal of Management History, vol. 16, No. 4,
2010, 509–520.
61) Herbert A. Simon, “A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 69, no. 1, February 1955, 101.
62) Simon, “A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice”, 110.
144
Properties of Wicked Problems »

• Wicked problems are difficult to define.
• Solutions to wicked problems are often difficult to recognize because it is hard to

determine the root cause of the problem.
• It is hard to see if you have analysed the situation well enough, and the situation is
always changing.
• Wicked problems may have a large number of potential solutions.
• Wicked problems take a long time to solve and often work is stopped before the
problem is solved.
• Solutions to wicked problems are not perfect, but perhaps good enough — “satisficing.”
• It is hard to determine if the problem is solved.
• There is no room for trial and error. Every solution is a one-shot effort.
• Every solution to a wicked problem is essentially unique.
• Solutions to one part of a wicked problem may lead to another problem.i
i) Adapted from Rittel and Webber, 1973, and several other sources.
peacebuilding activities.
Simon received the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1978 for his lifetime work in analysing, postulating, and writing
about decision-making. He also coined the idea of “design”, which is now used in the US military’s versions of “design
methodology”. A student of Simon wrote:
“[Simon] challenged the assumptions of the mid-twentieth

century economic theory, the so-called Rational Economic
Man model. This model assumed the omniscience of human
decision-making: that humans recognize all of their possible
choices and the consequence of selecting each. Simon, the
empiricist, observed that the Rational Economic Man does not
exist.”63
Simon initiated several new thoughts in the complex world of decision-making. He continued to lecture and
teach others on the challenging process of human decision making throughout the rest of his life.
Many businesses have picked up Simon’s ideas, and other scholars continued to expand on this work. The
terms “complicated problems” and “complex problems” emerged into the lexicon of problem-solving. Others have
expanded these ideas to call them “tame problems” and “wicked problems”. Peacebuilding is a wicked problem.
Complicated or tame problems are generally easy to solve. Certainly, the modern-day automobile is a complicated
system with many moving parts. If the car does not run, a knowledgeable mechanic can solve the problem. Complex
problems often introduce the human element into the problem. Human beings add complexity to any issue for
a multitude of reasons. If we put the human behind the wheel of a car, the possibility of what might happen
63) Edward A. Feigenbaum, “Herbert A. Simon, 1916–2001”, Science, vol. 291, No. 5511, 16 March 2001.
145
transforms a complicated problem into a complex problem. Of course, this is a simplified explanation.
The work of people like design theorists Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber on wicked problems adds more perspective
on the kinds of problems peacebuilders face. Rittel and Webber continued Simon’s work on problem-solving but
looked deeper into problem sets. They saw that scientists often tackled tame problems, while social scientists often
dealt with wicked problems. In tame problems, there is a clearly defined solution. There are normally only a limited
number of solutions to the problem, and the problem-solver knows when they have solved the problem. Examples
of tame problems include a chemist analysing the makeup of new material or an architect designing a new building.
According to Rittel and Webber, “wicked problems, in contrast, have neither of these clarifying traits; and they
include nearly all public policy issues.”64 Rittel defined wicked problems as “that class of social system problems
which are ill-formulated, where the information is confusing, where there are many clients and decision makers
with conflicting values, and where the ramifications in the whole system are thoroughly confusing.”65 This definition
sounds a lot like the challenges facing peacebuilders. Social problems are inherently wicked. Perhaps the building of
a school or a clinic is only a tame problem, but the running and continued functioning of this asset become wicked
problems. Adding the human dimension to any problem almost guarantees that a problem will be considered wicked.
Rittel and Webber went on to classify the properties of wicked problems. First, wicked problems are hard to
define and articulate. Tremendous amounts of information might be gathered to understand the problem, but the
problem-solver is never sure he or she has gathered enough information to articulate the problem fully. Once the
problem-solver thinks he has gathered enough information, the situation changes. Due to the volume of information,
at some point, the problem-solver must say, “I have enough information to begin solving the problem”, yet there
appears to be an infinite number of possible solutions. Additionally, these solutions might link to other problems.
These types of problems often have no definable end state. How do you determine when poverty for a certain
group of people is solved? Is poverty a class problem, an education problem, or an economic problem? What about
health care? Setting up a health clinic is certainly a good start, but how will that clinic be maintained, supplied, and
staffed with qualified medical personnel? Will the State build an effective health system to solve the more challenging
health problems? More often than not the peacebuilder will run out of resources, patience, and money to solve the
problems. Peacebuilders should consider all these things when engaging in a failed or failing State.
Solutions to wicked problems are not finite, and it is hard to determine when you have solved a problem. Solving
one problem could lead to another problem. For example, the women of a small Afghan village regularly walked a
long distance to the local stream to fetch water. The task took a lot of time and energy, so a well-intentioned NGO
drilled a well in the village; however, the well was destroyed soon after it was built. The women had enjoyed their
free time to talk with other women during the long walk to the stream, and the well caused a new problem in that
they were given no time to socialize with others.
Rittel and Webber noted that there is no way to experiment in social situations. The peacebuilder cannot test one
theory on one population and another on a different population — such activity is highly unethical. People in social
settings are not guinea pigs. Scientists, on the other hand, can experiment at will on a particular issue, and when
they find a solution, they can exploit it.
The history of design theory is a relatively short one. It began in the 1950s and 1960s with Herbert Simon and
his colleagues Anders Ericsson, Edward Feigenbaum, James March, and Allen Newell. Along the way, new academic
disciplines were added to the group of people conducting design research. Ideas on how to solve social problems
64) Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber, “Dilemma in a General Theory of Planning”, Policy Sciences, vol. 4, 1973, 160.
65) C. West Churchman, “Wicked Problems”, Management Science, vol. 14, no. 4, December 1967.
146
continued to be studied, analysed, and practised in the 1980s and 1990s. Today, Design Theory has its own academic
discipline. Social programmes, businesses, and governments use many ideas from Design Theory.66
Following the American failure in the Vietnam War, senior leaders in the US Army began to re-examine the
methods of planning battles, major operations, and campaigns. By the early 1990s, the US Army reverted to
traditional thinking about military planning and embraced older military strategists like Carl von Clausewitz, Antoine-
Henri Jomini, B.H. Liddell Hart, and others. The result was a return to classical military operational art and a redefined
military decision-making process. Essentially, the military began with an understanding of the situation — mostly the
enemy situation — and a clear definition of the mission or tasks to be accomplished. From this point, they developed
options, and the commander selected an option to solve the military problem, which was normally an attack or
defence. This type of thinking worked fine in conventional military operations and led to significant victories like the
Gulf War in 1991. However, when the US Army faced challenging missions in Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo, which
were mostly humanitarian or peacekeeping in nature, it became clear there was more to consider than the enemy
situation. Civilian populations took on more importance. As such, the US Army expanded its analysis of the situation
to include political issues, social issues, economic considerations, and host nation infrastructure capabilities. As the
information revolution expanded, the role of information became important to military planners.
Initially, military planning worked well for the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Once they defeated the
enemy, the American military was faced with the task of rebuilding a nation after a war. Although the American
military had performed occupation duties
in other places throughout its history,
including Vietnam, most of the lessons

were forgotten. The military developed
new doctrine documents for counter-
insurgency and stability operations (the US
military’s term for peacebuilding). These
new concepts were taught and practised.
The new doctrine, however, was not detailed
enough to help military planners. Planners
looked outside the military and began to

explore the “design” ideas of Herbert Simon
and others. The old methods of military
planning were not effective when faced with
the wicked or complex problems that nation- Figure 5-7
building presented.
By 2008, the US Army developed its own version of Design Methodology. In 2009, the US Army began running a
six-week course for army planners.67 The 2016 version of the US Army War College’s Campaign Planning Handbook
goes on to say, “while the US military has remained agile, flexible, and adaptable at the tactical level, there is a
perceived need for the institutional culture to become more adaptive. Recent history [Afghanistan and Iraq] is filled
with examples of tactical excellence within an environment of strategic confusion, largely due to failure to define
66) Nigel Cross, “A History of Design Methodology”, in Design Methodology and Relationships with Science, eds. M. J. de Vries, N. Cross, and D. P. Grant
(Dordrecht, Netherlands: Ed Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993).
67) Thomas Graves and Bruce Stanley, “Design and Operational Art: A Practical Approach to Teaching the Army Design Methodology”, Military Review, vol.
93, no. 4, July/August 2013.
147
the military problem correctly and to adapt planners’ understanding of that problem as the environment changes.”68
The head of the school for army planners, Colonel Stefan Banach, used the International Technology Education
Association’s definition of design: “An iterative decision-making process that produces plans by which resources are
converted into products or systems that meet human needs and wants to solve problems.”69 Banach and co-author
Alex Ryan wrote, “Scientists describe how the world is; designers suggest how it might be.”70
According to the US Army’s Campaign Planning Handbook, design encompasses three frames of critical thinking:
the environmental frame, the problem frame, and the solution frame (see Figure 5-7). The process, however, is
not iterative. Designers should freely move among the three frames. Understanding the environment is the first
step in the process. When one feels comfortable that the environment is understood, the designer can move to the
problem frame. More often than not, when drafting problems, it might be necessary to go back to the environmental
frame to comprehend the environment further. The same is true when moving into the solution frame. When faced
with the complex or wicked problem of peacebuilding, planners should move freely back and forth between the
environmental, problem, and solution frames. The process never ends. Even when solutions to peacebuilding are
underway, new problems might arise that cause the planner to go back to the environmental frame.
The environmental frame is usually the first place to begin. Here the planner must try to understand the
environment in which he or she will work. The US military has developed an acronym to begin the process: PMESII —
Political, Military, Economics, Social, Infrastructure, and Information. In many ways, this recalls the generic model in
which the planners look at security, governance, rule of law, infrastructure, economics, and social well-being.
There is no right or wrong way to look at the environment, but the process must be holistic and examine every
aspect of the society in which peacebuilders will work. This requires a great deal of research and talking to experts
and local people. Figure 5-7 depicts the interconnections among these various aspects of society. Each area of the
environment is connected in some way or another to other aspects of a society. For example, social well-being might be
tied to education or the societies’ ethnic makeup or even the economy or government policies. The idea of a thorough
environmental frame is to understand all the complexities of the country in which the peacebuilder might work.
The US military’s approach is to create a small team of planners, usually five to 10 people, who conduct this
analysis. They read reports, articles, and journals about the country. More often than not they will reach out to scholars
who have studied various aspects of the society to get their opinions. The process of creating a holistic picture of
the country might take weeks to months to complete. The military encourages commander (leader) involvement. At
various times, like at the end of each frame, the planning teams brief and discuss their analyses with the leader.
The strength of understanding the environmental frame is dialogue. Peacebuilding planners must debate and
discuss various aspects of the societal makeup to form a picture of what is happening. How does one aspect of the
environment tie to another or several? Peacebuilders must understand, however, that their understanding of an
environment will never be complete. They are generally outsiders to the country. Gaining a better appreciation of
what is transpiring requires open dialogue with as many people as possible. Even discussions with local people will
be tainted by their experiences.
The Design Methodology was well underway among US military planners when General Stanley McChrystal
68) US Army, Campaign Planning Handbook 2016 (Carlisle Barracks, PA: US Army War College, 2016), 23.
69) International Technology Education Association, “Design”, accessed 8 October 2018. Available from: <https://www.iteea.org/Activities/2142/
Technological_Literacy_Standards/362/46863.aspx>.
70) Stephan J. Banach and Alex Ryan, “The Art of Design: A Design Methodology”, Military Review, vol. 89, no. 2, March–April 2009, 105.
148
assumed command of the NATO mission in Afghanistan in 2010. Planners had been at work for months trying to
understand the environment and the various connections in Afghan society. The visual depiction of the Afghan
environment made the front page of the New York Times on 27 April 2010. McChrystal said, “When we understand
that slide, we’ll have won the war.”71 Other general officers criticized the slide as too complicated and limiting the
true understanding of the environment. Yet planners for the International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) in
Afghanistan spent months conducting research, holding discussions with local Afghan officials, and consulting with
experts. The planners may have understood more about Afghan society than some Afghans.
It is appropriate to recall Herbert Simon’s basic premise of Design Methodology: the human mind is not capable
of comprehending so much data, and biases and personal experiences influence every person. The best we can do
is try to comprehend what is happening, but no one will fully understand the environment in which he or she lives
or works. That is why Simon and others created the three frames and why a planner must freely move among the
frames. In the end, the solution might only be sufficient without doing any harm.
Once there is a deep understanding of the environment, the peacebuilding planner can move into the problem
frame. At this point in the analysis, it is good to develop an idea of an end state. Where do the peacebuilders want to
take the society and how much will the local people accept this new altered state? This is usually a broad statement
that reflects the whole of analysis. For example, Country X should become a stable society with a functioning
government that looks after human needs and respects human rights. The purpose of the general end state is to give
all peacebuilders a goal to work towards.
At this point in the planning process, a good technique is to have all the planners list all the problems that
they uncovered in the environmental frame. This list can be long, and peacebuilders may not be able to address
all the problems. Like the generic method, another valid technique is to use the conflict tree analogy (Figure 5-2).
The leaves of the tree represent what is visible in the environment, while the trunk of the tree might be the core
problems. There will also be some root issues to list. Root issues might be hard to solve, so identifying core problems
is an effective way to begin the list of issues that peacebuilders can address initially. It is likely that peacebuilders will
only focus on a few core and root problems. Time and resources will limit the number of problems peacebuilders can
tackle, so a prioritized list is necessary at this point in the planning process.
Depending on the scope of the peacebuilding effort, planners can select a small list of problems to continue
their planning. Peacebuilders cannot address all the problems, but with a focused effort, they can begin the work of
transforming a fragile society into a more stable one. In-depth environmental framing allows the planner to pick the
most important problems while seeing the links between these problems and other problems and actors.
At this point, the peacebuilding planners should develop a short problem statement for each of the issues they
plan to undertake. Examples of problem statements might include the following:
• The health care system does not adequately take care of people’s health needs.
• The education system is ineffective, and many children are denied a quality education because of lack of
government funding and oversight.
• The police are not reflective of the society and the people do not respect them.
• Government corruption impedes the development of effective government economic policies.
After making these problem statements, the planner can go on to the next part of the process — the solution
71) Elisabeth Bumiller, “We Have Met the Enemy and He is PowerPoint”, New York Times, 27 April 2010.
149
frame. This is where experts in various fields become necessary. If the prioritized problem is security, then military
and police experts are needed to create a programme to improve security. If the problem is health care, then health
professionals are the best people to develop a comprehensive plan to improve the health care system. The same is
true for government functions, education, economics, etc. Thus, planners must reach out to experts to find viable
solutions to some of the problems identified.
Much like what was discussed in the generic model, the experts can define an end state for their functional area
and then develop a plan to reach that goal. Figure 5-7 provides the right kind of approach for any functional plan.
After planners develop a line of effort, experts will first define the overall end state of that line. The experts can then
develop intermediate goals to allow the programme to move towards the end state.
For example, if the end goal is to create an effective medical system within a country, then several intermediate
goals might be:
• Establish medical clinics staffed by international workers;
• Create training programmes for local medical personnel;
• Institute development programmes for the government or external funding for building or refurbishing a
local hospital; and
• Develop government policies and programmes to keep the health care system functioning as international
workers leave.
Peacebuilding planners will run into roadblocks from several angles. New problems will arise as they try to solve
some of the core problems. This requires the planner to step back into the environmental frame to re-evaluate the
situation, then devise new problem statements and new solutions. This is the real value of the design methodology.
Another key aspect of any programme is determining whether it is working. Is it meeting the established
goals? As discussed in the generic model, planners must establish and evaluate MOPs and MOEs. In the earlier
medical analogy, an MOP might be the number of local personnel that become qualified medical staff, and an MOE
might be to analyse and assess their work to determine if their training was adequate. Another measure might be
a governmental funding source to keep medical programmes functioning. The MOE might be an analysis of the
governmental policies to see if they aim to maintain an effective health system. As mentioned in the generic model,
an MOE is harder to determine than an MOP, yet both are necessary to evaluate any solution fully.
Section 5.4 Conclusion of Peacebuilding Planning

Peacebuilding planning is probably one of the most complex or wicked problems any leader or organization can
face. There are many variables and connections between elements of society. Transforming a fragile society into a
stable society is one of the most challenging and difficult undertakings anyone or any organization can undertake.
To remain focused on what needs to be done, it is important to remember the principles of peacebuilding.
Local or host nation ownership is probably the most important, followed by unity of effort. This is where most
peacebuilding endeavours go awry, as many organizations usually help in a peacebuilding effort. These might include
various UN agencies, other national government aid agencies, NGOs, and international organizations. To keep unity
of effort, some organization must develop an overall plan, and all others should strive to keep their programmes in
line with the overall strategic plan. If a nation is on the Peacebuilding Agenda, the PBC requires the affected country
to develop this overall plan.
150
Success in any peacebuilding effort requires a core of dedicated individuals who can keep a sharp focus on where
they are taking a society. Effective peacebuilding also needs resources — both people and money. Peacebuilding
cannot progress effectively without the resources to keep it going. In most peacebuilding efforts the governments of
the country are fragile and have limited resources at their disposal. Therefore, it takes some seed money to get the
programme(s) going.
Peacebuilding efforts have some of the greatest effects towards attaining the goal of world peace. If done
correctly, peacebuilding can transform a failed or fragile State into a stable country at peace with its neighbours and
contributing to the international community. The late Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in his 2005 Report of the
Secretary-General, In larger freedom, “roughly half of all countries that emerge from war lapse back into violence
within five years.”72 Peacebuilding is the process that prevents countries from lapsing back into war.
This lesson described four versions of peacebuilding planning and execution. All are quite similar. First, planners
must conduct a thorough assessment of the conflict or situation, then identify problems, and then create solutions.
The UN and other international organizations do a credible job of analysing the crisis before engaging. This is not
true for some NGOs that are also vital players in peacebuilding. Some NGOs send in their workers with little or no
understanding of the conflict situation or the goals of other organizations. This must improve, as unity of effort is
requisite for success in any peacebuilding effort.
Table 5-2 provides an overview of the four planning models described in this lesson. The table identifies the
characteristics of each model, including a detailed analysis before engagement the focus of efforts (whether on the
host country or the people), and identification of goals in the planning process. All four models focus on goals and
include a thorough assessment of the peacebuilding activities.
The bottom line is that peacebuilding is a wicked problem, and would-be peacebuilders must enter any situation
with open minds and conduct critical analysis and thinking. Experienced peacebuilders can be extremely valuable,
but they might also have preconceived approaches. Remember, no two peacebuilding missions are alike.
Table 5-2: Comparison of Planning Models in Lesson 5
Host
Detailed Population Goal- Assessment
Method Country
Analysis Focus Oriented Included
Focus
Generic Model X X X
X
LPI Model X X X
(called “learning”)
X
UN Integrated Planning X X X
(somewhat)
Design Methodology X X X
72) UN General Assembly, In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all, Report of the Secretary-General, A/59/2005, 21
March 2005.
151
End-of-Lesson Quiz »
1. If the United Nations takes the lead in a 6. A peacekeeping mission deployed under
peacebuilding mission, who is normally Chapter VII of the UN Charter means the
in charge? conditions will be _____.
A. The Force Commander (FC) A. relatively peaceful
B. The Secretary-General B. apathetic
C. The Security Council C. unstable
D. The Special Representative of the Secretary- D. secure
General (SRSG)
7. Which of the following is a principle of
2. Ted Robert Gurr’s lesson on relative peacebuilding?
deprivation theory should be considered A. Transformation
important for peacebuilders because
B. Overwhelming force
_____.
C. Solid international support
A. it helps peacebuilders plan
D. Design Methodology
B. the presence of peacebuilders can raise local
people’s expectations 8. Who adopted Design Methodology from
C. the theory focuses on human security business models for peacebuilding
purposes?
3. TRUE or FALSE: Two peacebuilding
A. The UN
efforts can be them same when the
earlier effort occurred in a neighbouring B. NATO
country. C. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali
D. The US military
A. True
B. False 9. According to Paul Collier, States in

conflict, especially violent conflict,
4. In the conflict tree analogy, the _____.
branches represent _____.
A. produce large numbers of refugees
A. the lifeblood of the problem B. never seem to recover from the conflict
B. the invisible effects C. have spillover effects into neighbouring
C. the core problems countries
D. the effects of conflict D. have higher rates of election fraud
5. _____ is required before the Security 10. Most fragile States encounter some
Council votes on a new peacekeeping or type of structural violence that prevents
peacebuilding mission. citizens from _____.
A. A General Assembly resolution A. establishing good practices for peacebuilding
B. A NATO Report B. accessing global politics
C. A Report of the Secretary-General C. achieving an acceptable standard of living
D. A troop contributor meeting D. rebuilding their economy
Answer Key provided on the next page.
152
End-of-Lesson Quiz »
Answer Key »
1. D
2. B
3. B
4. D
5. C
6. C
7. A
8. D
9. C
10. C
153

Lesson 5 - Planning and Conducting Peacebuilding

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lesson 5 - Planning and Conducting Peacebuilding

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEACEBUILDING

“Advancing the extension

UN Photo #605279 by Evan Schneider.

In this lesson » Lesson Objectives »

Section 5.1 Introduction • Identify the various approaches to peacebuilding

Planning planning must include local ownership of the process.

• Comprehend that effective peacebuilding activities

• Know that all parties involved in peacebuilding activities

• Understand that planning is not the end — continued

• Appreciate the value of quality measures of effectiveness.

PEACE OPERATIONS TRAINING INSTITUTE

Section 5.1 Introduction

“Advancing the extension of State

–Peacebuilding in the aftermath of

Certain concepts of peacebuilding planning are more

important than others. Johan Galtung’s theories of structural

violence and positive peace are particularly noteworthy. Most

fragile States encounter some type of structural violence that

prevents citizens from achieving an acceptable standard of

1) UN General Assembly and UN Security Council, Peacebuilding in the

their expectations of what they can accomplish.

conflict or transform a society after violent conflict.

peacekeepers deployed to the country/region.

A wide view of the General Assembly Hall as Secretary-

Nations Secretariat may publish several Reports of the Secretary-General.

their work and begin anew.

Section 5.2 Peacebuilding Principles

1. Host nation ownership

2. Complex problems – no two are the same

» Host nation ownership

At the announcement of the creation of the PBF, he stated:

“Although peacebuilding is a collective effort, involving the

its website demonstrates the principle of local ownership:

“At charity: water we know that building a water project is the

» Complex problems – no two are the same

perhaps the local people will accept the programmes.

efforts of all the various organizations is extremely hard, but it is possible.

from the OECD outlines the challenges of unity of effort:

“Many players work in fragile and conflict-affected settings,

Indian peacekeepers serving with UNMISS

Otherwise, changes might not be accepted.

Actors and Approaches to Peacebuilding

Level 1: Top leadership • Focus on high-level negotiations

Level 2: Middle-Range Leadership

Level 3: Grassroots Leadership

» Accountability and Professionalism

Section 5.3 Planning for Peacebuilding

–General Dwight D. Eisenhower, thirty-fourth President of the

the commander’s orders.

Approach #1 – The generic method of peacebuilding planning

Any would-be peacebuilder must conduct a

careful analysis of the conflict before he or she

can pay any attention to these lines of effort.

This can be done only through careful research

and study, which should include the wider region

in addition to the affected country. Paul Collier,

World Bank, articulates that conflicts, especially

violent conflicts, have spillover effects into

neighbouring countries and the surrounding

agreements or ceasefires negotiated? What key

develop a good peacebuilding strategy.

programmes cannot begin or can only start in a limited way.

Rule of Law Line of Effort