Written evidence submitted by the Peace Direct (INR0011)

Summary:

• When the Integrated Review resumes, it needs to be a more transparent and inclusive process, with robust and regular consultation that is given sufficient time to draw on relevant external stakeholders’ perspectives.
• The UK’s foreign-policy strategy should be reviewed through a shared security lens; prioritising international peace and security as a top-level objective; and strengthening engagements with, and support to, locally-led efforts to prevent and respond to conflict.

About Peace Direct:

1. This submission has been prepared by Peace Direct, a UK-based international NGO dedicated to supporting locally-led efforts to stop violent conflict and build sustainable peace. Peace Direct works with local organisations in 13 fragile and conflict-affected countries and maintains a network of local peacebuilding experts around the world who provide regular insight and coverage of trends, initiatives and organisations working on peacebuilding.  

2. Peace Direct welcomes the FAC’s inquiry and views it as an opportunity for the UK government to ensure that cross-government policy, practice and investment are in place to address the root causes of conflict. Our submission seeks to address the inquiry’s questions on the efficacy of the Integrated Review’s process and priorities for UK foreign-policy strategy, drawing on Peace Direct’s experience of working with local organisations in fragile and conflict affected countries.

Efficacy of Integrated Review process

3. Peace Direct respects the decision to pause the Integrated Review due to the pressing need to focus on COVID-19. When it recommences however, it should be a transparent and inclusive process, with robust and regular consultation that is given sufficient time to draw on relevant external stakeholder perspectives.

4. The ability to shape international peace and security is not held by the UK Government alone. We believe the review should engage the following groups:

5. Academics, think tanks, NGOs and wider civil society: Academics and think tanks have expertise that is relevant to the review. Non-governmental organisations and diaspora communities also have expertise and connections to local communities in fragile contexts, drawn from humanitarian, development and peacebuilding work in places where the government footprint may be small.

6. Local communities: Communities affected by conflict have the greatest insight into its causes and often identify the most sustainable solutions for addressing conflict. Their views are vital to informing the UK’s understanding of what works, particularly in places where the UK has minimal presence. However, their perspectives are largely absent from any policy analysis. The UK must consider ways to draw this in to inform its review.

7. To ensure broad participation, when the Integrated Review resumes, government should hold a series of online consultations. For example, Peace Direct’s Platform4Dialogue hosts text-based discussions online and can be accessed at the most convenient time for the user – from any time zone, anywhere, which would allow UK Government to consult with civil society globally, even where it has little footprint. Used by academics, NGOs and UN agencies, it would allow wide consultation to occur, despite any remaining restrictions in the UK or around the world on physical contact and movement due to COVID-19. For example, Peace Direct recently hosted a consultation on the impacts of COVID-19 which brought together over 200 participants from 59 countries.[i]

8. To ensure the efficacy of the Review processes, Peace Direct recommends:

1. A clear and transparent process for the Integrated Review is made public, with a timeline, identifying multiple opportunities for external stakeholders to input.

2. Engage with academics, think tanks, NGOs and wider civil society in the UK as well as conflict affected communities and local organisations.

3. Explore online options to enable robust and inclusive series of consultations, and set out accountability measures to ensure consultation is meaningful.

4. When the impacts and long-term implications of COVID-19 become clearer, Parliamentary Select Committees’ inquiries on the Integrated Review should seek further evidence.

Priorities for UK foreign-policy strategy

9. The UK’s foreign-policy strategy should be reviewed through a shared security lens.[ii] A shared security lens recognises that we can only achieve sustainable outcomes when we see the wellbeing of others as important as our own. At its core, this requires actively seeking to prevent conflict, rather than just responding to or supressing it.[iii] Like the current COVID-19 crisis, many of the most pressing challenges - violent conflict, climate change and inequality - are not contained by national borders. They require intensive international cooperation as well as urgent action at home. Those most secure are only as safe as the most vulnerable.

10. The shared security lens provides a strong framework to improve policy coherence and coordination. Globally, we want to see inclusive societies that can resolve conflict peacefully and an international system that focuses its resources on conflict prevention rather than crisis response. To ensure policy cohesion, the UK must prioritise international peace and security as a top-level objective of national foreign, security and defence policy, with a corresponding conflict strategy, to guide policy decisions. This should require all other aspects and tools of foreign policy including trade, development, diplomacy, military deployments, stabilisation efforts and other security initiatives to contribute.

11. The UK foreign-policy strategy should strengthen the UK’s engagements with, and support to, locally-led efforts to prevent and respond to conflict.  Local communities and NGOs play a vital role in conflict transformation and sustaining peace, from mediating social tensions and providing for local security needs, to playing roles in democratising security sector policy making. Yet, they are systematically neglected and marginalised from the international peace and security responses and peace processes. A growing body of evidence demonstrates the efficacy of locally-led peacebuilding for preventing and resolving violent conflict; and underpins the building of sustainable and just peace.

12. Research[iv] conducted by Peace Direct shows that local actors contribute to sustainable peace at three levels: changes in knowledge and attitudes, changes in behaviour, and structural changes (norms, systems, institutions). Within each of these levels, local initiatives influence the prevention or reduction of violence, and improve horizontal relationships (between people at the community level) and vertical relationships (between people at the community level and power holders). 

13. The impact of community peace structures goes beyond the resolution of specific disputes, to create a more robust environment of trust, stability and collaboration. By demonstrating that problems can be satisfactorily and fairly resolved, community peace actions reduce the incentive for disputing parties – and their respective networks and constituencies – to act pre-emptively and aggressively. In so doing, community structures prevent small disputes from escalating, and can be instrumental in atrocity prevention.[v]

14. Building peace takes time; but it also requires flexible funding modalities to respond to rapidly evolving context and conflict dynamics.[vi] Initial analysis of OECD-DAC figures indicates that in 2018 the UK only disbursed 3.8% of the total ODA budget under the OECD-DAC “Civilian peacebuilding, conflict prevention and resolution” coding[vii]. The UK needs to invest in standing peace capabilities: mediation expertise, partnerships with local peacebuilders and funding models that support flexibility, innovation and smart risks to respond to rapidly changing conflicts in between lengthy and bureaucratic procurement or grant cycles. The current COVID-19 crisis demonstrates how important it is to be able to pivot in times of crisis.

15. As priorities for UK foreign-policy strategy, Peace Direct recommends it to:

1. Apply a shared security lens to all Integrated Review policies and objectives, with a view to consider, and measure, the wellbeing of others as well as our own.

2. Adopt a fourth national security objective to promote international peace and security, and a corresponding conflict strategy to guide cross government policy decisions.

3. Support local capacities for conflict-resolution and violence-prevention, which may require choosing long-term goals over short-term gains.

4. Ensure the UK has standing peace capabilities beyond current funding cycles by investing in civilian peacebuilding, conflict prevention and resolution; and adopt funding models that enable local actors to take a prominent role in long-term peace efforts.