This multi-partner United Nations study seeks to determine whether the UN Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) should increase its support to administrative and social services, and if so, to what types of programming. The study reviews current thinking and practices among United Nations agencies, funds and programmes alongside some of their partners in the areas of administrative services – specifically, the administrative (human and technical) capacities required to deliver services – and social services – including the areas of education, health (including water and sanitation) and food security.
It proposes a framework for understanding these contributions and begins to identify promising practices and directions. Areas for expanding PBF support are identified in the process, and it is hoped that the review will help to strengthen United Nations programming in these areas in ways that serve peacebuilding. The study is based on both desk review and field research in CAR, Kyrgyzstan, Uganda, Guinea-Bissau and Liberia.
The report argues that there is significant evidence to include administrative and social services amongst the menu of choices available to directly support peacebuilding in any given context. Finding the appropriate balance among the many peacebuilding priorities in any setting should ultimately be a country-driven exercise – one that is inclusive of a wide range of stakeholders at different levels, especially historically marginalised groups.
Key Findings:
- There is a significant and growing body of evidence that suggests that public administration and social services – delivered in an effective and equitable manner – can contribute to peacebuilding. Specifically, they can: address grievances that underlie or trigger violent conflict; offer a means for the state to reach out to society, to (re)build its legitimacy and systems of accountability.
- Despite their recognised contributions to peacebuilding, administrative and social services tend to take a back seat to interventions focused on the security sector and political processes in post-conflict settings.
- Peacebuilding outcomes manifest differently in different contexts, yet tend to fall into at least one the following three areas: Resilience and social cohesion; State capacity and legitimacy; Conflict drivers and root causes. These should be viewed as cluster areas where there is growing convergence, but not consensus, on groups of outcomes and indicators that can assist peacebuilding monitoring and evaluation.
Recommendations:
- The PBF should include greater support to administrative and social services in its funding portfolio, where it can have a direct and positive impact on the sustainability of the peacebuilding process.
- Respond to a context specific conflict driver, especially those that have the potential to unravel a peace process, and/or cause communities to (re)lapse into violent conflict.
- Include or leverage a peacebuilding intervention (or ensure a peacebuilding lens) throughout larger humanitarian and development programmes in order to create catalytic peacebuilding impacts.
- Build capacity of government and civil society in conflict-sensitive policymaking and programming. Support conflict-sensitive local governance and accompanying efforts to decentralise public administration and service delivery.
- Build inclusive, participatory processes and help manage societal expectations.
- Ensure cross-cutting issues are mainstreamed through programming.
