This U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) Special Report presents a model that links the infrastructure cycle with conflict analysis. This model is helpful to focus the attention of the infrastructure program planners and implementers on the conflict cycle. In many instances, infrastructure experts approach problems from an engineering perspective. While this view is important, it must be married with an appreciation of the conflict dynamic. Indeed, traditional engineering concerns, such as efficiency, are secondary in a conflict-sensitive approach.
This report is based on a series of consultations under the auspices of the USIP Center of Innovation for Economies and Conflict. The Institute’s Framework for Success provided the organisational structure for the consultations.
Key Findings:
- The complexity of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) often results in missed opportunities to act quickly in restoring essential services. Contracting officers are often reluctant to take chances in expediting infrastructure contracts due to concerns about violating the FAR. Simplified contracting, use of smaller projects, and reach-back support are three ways to ensure fleeting opportunities are not lost.
- In conflict-sensitive environments, the condition of infrastructure is often a barometer of whether a society will slip further into violence or make a peaceful transition out of the conflict cycle. The rapid restoration of essential services, such as water, sanitation, and electricity, assists in the perception of a return to normalcy and contributes to the peace process.
Recommendations:
A conflict-sensitive approach to infrastructure development begins with viewing the five key phases of program development through the lens of conflict analysis. In doing so, a program can be designed to enhance stabilisation by reducing drivers of conflict and supporting the peace process. At the very least, adopting a conflict sensitive approach will help to ensure that infrastructure development does not incite or revive conflict.
- Assessment: Establish a robust conflict analysis mechanism to inform infrastructure strategy and planning. Analysis should address key issues such as an identification of who controls infrastructure and what motivates these stakeholders. Identify how infrastructure supports regional and global integration.
- Planning and Coordination: Reduce confusion by establishing a clear leader throughout the various phases of the conflict cycle.
- Build and Maintain Legitimacy: Create a fully integrated and resourced capacity development plan within the host nation at the following levels: policy, laws and regulations, inter-organisational, host nation government, and infrastructure.
- Execution: Establish a strong reach-back capacity, creating seamless virtual teams. Small, community-driven infrastructure projects implemented by local firms are preferable to large-scale projects. Link short-term initiatives to long-term development strategy.
- Transition Planning: Set goals to meet critical transition milestones in security, institutional capacity, and public perception at the beginning of an infrastructure program. Implement safeguards to protect facilities after transition, including real-time oversight and transparent bidding procedures. If needed, implement a donor-funded bridging strategy to ensure proper operations and maintenance until the host nation is able and willing to take full control.
