• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Learning
  • E-Bulletin

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
    • Supporting economic development
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Poverty & wellbeing
    • Social protection
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Rights-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • M&E approaches
    • Indicators
    • Learning
Home»GSDRC Publications»Lessons for coherent and integrated conflict analysis from multilateral actors

Lessons for coherent and integrated conflict analysis from multilateral actors

Helpdesk Report
  • Siân Herbert
September 2020

Question

(3) What lessons are there from “non-aid agents”* in how they have conducted and applied conflict prevention and peacebuilding analysis in a coherent and integrated way?
*“non-aid agents” are those whose primary role/focus is not aid, but is diplomacy, trade, security, etc. E.g. UN Dep of political affairs/Peacebuilding support office, NATO, WTO, EEAS, European Parliament

Summary

This rapid literature review collates lessons from multilateral organisations on their efforts to conduct and apply conflict analysis in fragile and conflict-affected states (FCAS) in a coherent and integrated way. It contains substantial information about the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN) and much less about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Examination of the EU’s Comprehensive Approach (CA) and Integrated Approach (IA) to conflict analysis reveals several key lessons. Similarly, the UN’s new “sustaining peace” agenda initiated in 2015 which partly focused on advancing its conflict analysis and joint assessments presents some major lessons. NATO and the OSCE’s use of the CA approach also reveal some lessons on how conflict prevention and peacebuilding analysis can be conducted and applied in a coherent and integrated way.

file type icon See Full Report [PDF - 945 KB]

Enquirer:

  • Australian Government (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade)

Suggested citation

Herbert, S. (2019). Lessons for coherent and integrated conflict analysis from multilateral donors. (GSDRC Helpdesk Research Report). Birmingham, UK: GSDRC, University of Birmingham.

Related Content

Trends in Conflict and Stability in the Indo-Pacific
Literature Review
2020
Gender and countering violent extremism (CVE) in the Kenya Mozambique region
Helpdesk Report
2020
Institutions, approaches and lessons for coherent and integrated conflict analysis
Helpdesk Report
2020
Conflict analysis of Bangladesh
Helpdesk Report
2020
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".OkRead more