International actors face recurrent challenges coordinating their efforts to implement peace agreements to end civil wars. This InternationalPeaceAcademy paper identifies strategic coordination amongst third-party actors as a critical element of successful peace implementation. Incoherence and inconsistency in strategy can undermine the viability or the effectiveness of implementation efforts. Strategic coordination is a growing policy challenge due to the increasing proliferation of actors with overlapping mandates, competitive relations and minimal accountability.
Strategic coordination is a critical to the capacity of implementers to stave off opposition. Opponents of peace will tend to exploit divisions amongst implementers and take advantage of confusion or disagreement. The ability of international actors to meet the growing complexity of strategic coordination depends on their ability to overcome three recurring challenges. These are: incoherence between the negotiation and implementation phases of a peace process; divergence of strategies within a given phase; and contradictory efforts to implement a given strategy.
The effectiveness of strategic coordination varies according to external conditions, including: the difficulty of the implementation environment; the degree of commitment of major and regional powers; and the correspondence of interests and objectives among those powers:
- Past cases show that specific features of the coordination mechanism employed can help mitigate environmental constraints.
- Strategic coordination of peace implementation will be easier where there is: a clearly defined lead agency; continuity of third-party actors between negotiation and implementation phases; and an established forum for policy consultation amongst implementers.
- Strategic coordination has been successful where implementation has been guided by a lead state whose authority to establish priorities and resolve disputes is recognised by other key implementers.
- Although the lead state approach is unplanned by definition, positive past experiences suggest it is an important alternative to United Nations (UN) coordination.
- Where the UN enjoys a central, authoritative role a Special Representative of the Secretary General (SRSG) can provide important policy coordination. This is best achieved where the SRSG is involved in both negotiation and implementation.
- Most cases of successful strategic coordination have featured ‘Friends Groups’ – the bringing together of key governments to ensure focus and commonality of approaches.
Without effective coordination by the UN, a comparable regional or international organisation, or a lead state, the effectiveness of implementation efforts will be heavily constrained:
- Ideally strategic coordination should establish clear lead actors to set and pursue priorities, provide consistency across phases and resolve disputes. Neither the UN nor any other actor is currently equipped to do this.
- The capacity of the UN to perform essential strategic coordination functions is constrained by its own weakened authority, the proliferation of third-party actors and competition between powers. This is unlikely to change substantially in the near future.
- The UN and other international actors have experimented with different models of strategic coordination. Within the UN two distinct models have emerged: the Strategic Frameworks Initiative and the Integrated Mission.
- Recent efforts to enhance structures for strategic coordination on the ground have been frustrated by: the number of actors involved; the limited acceptance of the coordinating authority of the UN, or an analogous body; and the absence of policy-coordination at headquarters level.
