News Type: Blog posts

Does Aid Harm? Risks and opportunities for international aid in Cabo Delgado

Humanitarian aid and development agencies working in Mozambique’s conflict-affected Cabo Delgado region are increasingly coming to terms with the risk of exacerbating conflicts and the need to adopt conflict sensitivity measures. There is ample evidence demonstrating the complicated interrelation between aid interventions and conflicts, and how aid may inadvertently prolong or create conflicts.

This blog post, a summary of a longer piece presented at the 2024 OMR annual conference entitled ‘Drivers of conflict in Mozambique’, discusses two ways in which aid interventions and the conflict in Cabo Delgado interact. The article is based on PCi’s experience of supporting international organisations to integrate conflict sensitivity into their programmes since 2022.

Interaction number one: Theft and diversion of aid

The first, and probably the most intuitive, way in which aid can interact with the conflict context is through the theft of goods which are used strategically or to fund the military struggle. The attack on Macomia in May 2024, when insurgents looted NGOs’ offices represents a clear example of the materialisation of this risk. As the risk-management company Focus Group reported “The looting of military bases, commercial establishments and NGOs forms a key part of the insurgent’s modus operandi and expands their arsenal, ammunition and food stockpiles”.

On the other hand, humanitarian and development agencies should also consider that looting and diversion may involve other stakeholders than the insurgents. We can speak of diversion for example when the lists of beneficiaries of aid are altered by formal or informal leaders in order to favour friends, family or clients. Ayuda en Acción reported that ‘people complain that some chiefs register their relatives on the lists of displaced persons in their neighbourhoods so that they have access to humanitarian aid, to the detriment of the families who should have this right’.

With this in mind, it is important to consider how the diversion of aid may be perceived in the context of Cabo Delgado, where some of the main reasons for young people to entrar no mato (join the insurgency) are the lack of economic opportunity, and a way to protest against an ineffective or corrupt state.

Interaction number two: Distribution of aid

Another way in which aid interacts with conflict dynamics is by affecting intergroup relations at the point of its distribution. The selection of beneficiaries and participants by humanitarian and development organisations, as well as their own hiring practices and geographic reach, may advantage or disadvantage some groups over others.

A widely discussed case, and one that has been partially addressed by many implementers, regards the different treatment of internally displaced people (IDPs) hosted in resettlement camps and the communities living nearby those camps. Solidarity between these communities was a key ingredient in limiting the disastrous effects of war on those who had to flee their homes. However, as CARE Mozambique reports in 2022, ‘there are evident signs of solidarity fatigue and tensions between IDPs and host communities result in frequent conflicts’. These conflicts are unwittingly reinforced by aid agencies who deliver aid goods and activities solely to IDPs and not the communities that they are living amongst.

The same kind of interaction can be observed regarding the hiring practices of organisations working in the North of Mozambique. Many of the employees of national and international organisations are either foreigners or are from different regions of Mozambique. This is understandable, it is not easy for organisations working there to hire locally, due to the level of demand for highly specialised workers. However, local communities perceive even Mozambican outsiders as vientes (foreigners) and see them as significant beneficiaries of aid. This combined with the fact that most humanitarian and development agencies visit communities in expensive vehicles and house international staff and offices in costly locations – both important from a security perspective – further reinforces the message that the aid sector is a profitable industry.

Mitigation measures

While strategies to adapt to the risks identified above need to be tailored to the context and the type of intervention, we have identified common good practices that minimise these risks, and that maximise opportunities to contribute positively to peace and social cohesion.

First and foremost, it needs to be noted that we advocate for minimising risks, not eliminating them. “Doing not harm” is often an unattainable goal. For example, if the delivery of life-saving goods to communities risks being stolen by armed groups, and there is no way to avoid this risk, the first consideration needs to be of the consequences, should this happen. If the benefits of the delivery outweigh the risks, then we adopt strategies to minimise these risks. These might relate to the timing and location of the delivery, or what oversight and complaints mechanisms we have that will let us know if diversion is taking place.

Having staff from the places where aid is delivered, who speak the local languages and know how to negotiate access is of paramount importance. Negotiating access with traditional and political leaders at the local level is by no means an easy task, and we have witnessed organisations having to accept the directions of these leaders unquestioningly when staff don’t have the language or connections to engage in dialogue. This increases the risk of diversion of aid or missing people who should have benefitted.

When it is not possible to hire expertise locally, agencies can consider working with local partners or peer organisations to build a granular understanding of the socio-political dynamics at the local level.

The finite nature of aid also needs to be considered. There is no way to distribute the available aid that will not create some level of discontent. Selection criteria need to exist and these criteria will inevitably exclude some people. Many agencies have now stopped selecting beneficiaries based on their status (for example as IDPs) but no select on the basis of need. Others have invested in communicating the criteria for participation upfront, explaining when and why they focus on IDPs.

To address the perception of aid disproportionately benefitting outsiders and foreigner, sustainable partnerships with local activists and organisations can be developed. Building the capacities of local organisations to gain their independence from organisations based in the Global North or in Maputo is a long-term process, but a process that can bring mutual benefits, with outside organisations gaining the expertise to work in a way that is culturally- and conflict-sensitive whilst supporting local organisations with financial and technical capacity.

What’s next?

Further research on the impacts of aid on the conflict dynamics of Northern Mozambique is needed. This will also help us to better understand the potential for humanitarian and development interventions to address the root causes of conflict and build sustainable peace.

PCi is currently working with national and international organisations and donors in Mozambique to explore ways in which the conflict sensitivity of aid can be strengthened in a coherent and sustainable manner. We believe that an effective way to do this is by establishing a conflict sensitivity facility that can provide tailored analysis and guidance to agencies working in Mozambique.

The blogpost is a summary of the paper presented at the 2024 OMR annual conference entitled Drivers of conflict in Mozambique. For further information please contact Lorenzo Giuliani (lorenzo.giuliani@peacefulchange.org).

Building peace in a multi-polar world

We now live in a multi-polar world. The US, the UK and the EU no longer project the hard and soft power required to credibly to maintain the international norms and institutions that have sought to manage violent conflict since World War II. In a multi-polar world we can anticipate a new era of great power rivalry. We can anticipate that more countries and armed groups will calculate to take a chance on violence with less fear of severe consequences.

This era will be characterised by greater complexity, unpredictability and very sensitive to changes in climate and economic conditions. As peacebuilders we need to confront some deeply uncomfortable questions about how our existing tools and methodologies will stack up and how we, as a community, can be part of preventing some of the worst outcomes in terms of violent conflict. 

Reflecting on how peacebuilders can respond to this increased potential for chaos and violence, four core actions spring to mind: 

Support to renewed international norms and institutions

The UN and other post-WW II institutions are already under what appears as existential pressure. There are many reasons to feel cynical about the efficacy of the UN and other international institutions. At a time where we are looking to support localisation and decolonisation agendas, they are also easily decried as serving the interests of Western countries.  However, these institutions have also presided over the most peaceful era in recorded history, with a sharp decline in deaths from war since 1946, and more people than ever being governed by democratically elected governments.

International institutions and norms represent the best chance of channelling disputes between states into arbitration and problem solving rather than the use of force. They will be critical to preventing a race to the bottom with respect to climate change measures and responses. A core priority for peacebuilders should be to work in broad coalitions across the North and South to support the evolution of international institutions that can manage modern problems and conflicts. In so doing, peacebuilders should engage across diverse contexts to help negotiate the inclusive set of values that can underpin institutions and norms as they evolve. The UN’s 2023 New Agenda for Peace offers one starting-point for reflection, critique and development. 

Work within our own communities

European politics are seeing a rise in populism, nationalism and far-right political platforms. Perhaps tapping into an increasing levels of public distrust in politicians and “elites”, some of the political platforms that are finding electoral support actively seek to overthrow the existing political order – including through violence. Liberal democracy is, so far, the best political idea that Western countries have had for how to manage conflict amongst their many constituent parts. History suggests that we should be very cautious about an increased potential for violent conflict as a result of these political shifts. We are likely to see deepening of divisions within our own European societies that may well find violent expressions.

Additionally, populist/nationalist governments are likely to be less supportive of the type of values-based international institutions that is required to manage conflicts and challenges a multi-polar world. Speaking from the perspective of a UK-HQ’ed organisation, it is clear that European peacebuilders can play an important role in using our tools and knowledge to help maintain social cohesion and tackle drivers of violent conflict within our own societies.

In addition, European peacebuilders should work with a wide range of coalitions within our own societies to counteract nationalism and extremist narratives and to maintain liberal political and democratic institutions. We should seek lessons learned from peacebuilding colleagues in other parts of the world who have worked against populist and autocratic governments. 

Developing shared concepts of sustainable peace

European and other Western peacebuilding organisations tend to define sustainable peace with reference with liberal political theory. It is important to acknowledge that peacebuilders in other parts of the world express scepticism with liberalism, not least for its focus on individualism, state centricity and neglect of locally specific traditions, initiative and ownership. For many, political liberalism is further tarnished by the societal and environmental impacts of economic policies and practices (neo-liberalism).

Overcoming division and working in solidarity as peacebuilders will be critical in a multi-polar more chaotic and violent world. Therefore, peacebuilders from across the world must continue to meaningfully engage in discussion to develop shared understandings of what sustainable peace means. This will contribute to shared efforts to localise peacebuilding work and create a platform for supporting each other’s work towards peace within our respective communities.  

Strengthening methodologies

Peacebuilding tools and methodologies were developed in the bi-polar and subsequently uni-polar world after WW II. They have demonstrated effectiveness in confronting conflict dynamics when local solutions can be developed and sustained. As great power dynamics become a more prevalent feature of conflict landscapes, peacebuilding practitioners may find it increasingly difficult to make and maintain impact on reducing violence because great powers will have the capacity to disrupt locally developed agreements and conflict resolution mechanisms. “Geopolitics” is generally seen as above the pay-grade of peacebuilding organisations, and outside our sphere of influence. We do not have many existing tools for confronting the impact of great power interests on conflict situations. 

As peacebuilding organisations we need to develop better practices of working together within a specific country, developing shared theories of change to ensure that all our programmes use their diverse skills sets and resources to pull in the same direction and empower locally led initiatives.  Peacebuilding organisations must also urgently collaborate on developing robust theories of change for how peacebuilding can confront war in an era of great power clashes.  

Peacebuilding organisations have much to offer to address fragility and conflict. However, many peacebuilding organisations, like Peaceful Change initiative, have tended to see our role as technical – we implement projects in accordance with results frameworks, activity plans and reporting schedules.  We may now need to adopt a more activist stance where we do more to advocate for and champion the idea of peace – including within our own societies. This may require us to become more politically engaged than many of us are comfortable with. Through solidarity, collaboration and acting in coalitions we will need to find ways to claim the space to confront the trends that are driving power rivalry and conflict in the future. 

Conflict sensitivity considerations relating to the Libya Storm Daniel response

The consequences of the floods resulting from Storm Daniel on 10 and 11 September pose an urgent and unprecedented humanitarian emergency in communities in the East of Libya. The disaster, moreover, overlays Libya’s complex conflict environment, which will be shaped by this emergency and the response.  Failing to acknowledge this when providing international assistance risks exacerbating tensions, contributing to structural drivers of conflict and overlooking potential opportunities to contribute to sustainable peace.

This note provides a brief overview of conflict sensitivity considerations relating to the international response to Libya Storm Daniel which can be identified at this early stage of the response. It is intended to inform planners and implementers and identifies both issues to be considered as part of a conflict sensitive response and recommendations for potential ways to mitigate these.

The note can be viewed and downloaded in English on the link below:

Download here

For further information, please contact:


Lamis Ben Aiyad
Conflict Sensitivity Advisor
Peaceful Change initiative
lamis.aiyad@peacefulchange.org


Tim Molesworth
Senior Advisor: Conflict Sensitivity and Peace Technology
Peaceful Change initiative
tim.molesworth@peacefulchange.org

Why we need conflict sensitivity in Northern Mozambique

Women on the beach of Pemba, Cabo Delgado

In this blog post we explore the pressing need for increased conflict sensitivity skills amongst those delivering aid in Northern Mozambique.

The ongoing armed conflict in Cabo Delgado, Northern Mozambique, is creating challenges to the effective delivery of humanitarian aid by the international community. A lack of conflict sensitive approaches by some international agencies has led to unintended consequences and hindered the delivery of aid to those who need it most.  

Conflict sensitivity is an approach which helps those working in conflict-affected contexts minimise the negative impacts of their actions and work towards peace. In this blog post we explore the pressing need for increased conflict sensitivity skills amongst those delivering aid in Northern Mozambique. This includes having a solid understanding of the root causes of the conflict, learning from local expertise, and adapting actions based on this understanding. 

The challenges of delivering international aid in Northern Mozambique 

One of the critical issues that has emerged, and is now widely recognised in Northern Mozambique, is the unequal distribution of aid between internally displaced persons (IDPs) and host communities. While addressing the immediate needs of IDPs is crucial, neglecting the host communities has created feelings of resentment and worsened existing tensions. It is essential for aid organisations to recognise and respond to these grievances, adopting an inclusive approach which supports everyone who is affected. Conflict sensitivity guidance can help international aid agencies understand and address such disparities and existing lines of tension, ensuring they foster social cohesion rather than undermine it. 

Another widely mentioned challenge is the recent influx of international organisations working in Northern Mozambique, which brings the risk of duplicating efforts and inadequate coordination. Without good coordination, efforts may inadvertently overlap, resulting in inefficient resource allocation and missed opportunities to address the critical needs of people. Such circumstances can not only lead to inefficacy but can also fuel grievances against international agencies or ignite tensions among the communities they serve.  It is important for organisations providing international aid to have a space for reflection and to come together to build a common understanding of how they can contribute to peace.

How conflict sensitivity can help international aid agencies navigate these challenges 

Aid agencies working in Northern Mozambique must prioritise conflict sensitivity expertise when delivering assistance. Having a clear picture of the conflict landscape, recognising the grievances arising from aid disparities, acknowledging and addressing corruption challenges, and promoting inclusivity and local participation are essential steps towards ensuring effective and sustainable aid delivery.  

International organisations have a responsibility to invest in conflict sensitivity training and expertise, which will help them to navigate complex conflict dynamics, build meaningful relationships with local communities, and deliver aid that addresses the diverse needs of people affected by conflict. Building these skills include recruiting staff who have an excellent understanding of the communities agencies want to work with, and ensuring these staff can inform and influence context analysis and project design and adaptation. 

We are working to strengthen conflict sensitivity skills amongst national and international humanitarian and development organisations in Northern Mozambique. We do this by helping agencies conduct and make sense of conflict analysis, to identify and prioritise conflict sensitivity risk and design mitigation strategies, and to design, adapt and monitor projects based on this knowledge. 


This blog was written by Lorenzo Giuliani, Project Officer for the East and Southern Africa team. Learn more about why we are working in Northern Mozambique on this page, and how we are working there on this page.

Working towards peace with international organisations in Northern Mozambique 

We are working with humanitarian and development organisation WeWorld in Northern Mozambique to help them minimise the negative impacts of their work and actively contribute to building lasting peace.

Between summer 2022 and March this year Peaceful Change initiative (PCi) worked with Italian humanitarian and development organisation WeWorld to strengthen the conflict sensitivity of its work in Northern Mozambique.

Mozambique’s Cabo Delgado region has been experiencing conflict since 2017. Militants aligned to Islamic extremist groups have killed thousands and displaced more than a million people. Whilst some of these militants came from neighbouring countries, Mozambicans also joined in significant numbers, motivated by their socio and economic marginalisation as inhabitants one of Mozambique’s poorest regions. Recent discoveries of natural resource wealth in Cabo Delgado are perceived to have benefitted only the richest elites, further exacerbating local grievances. 

Against this backdrop, local and international humanitarian and development agencies have been continuing to deliver much-needed support to communities across Cabo Delgado. This support has included supplying food aid, building shelter for displaced people and supporting healthcare and education. However, delivering humanitarian and development work in conflict is a complex endeavour, fraught with the risk of exacerbating tensions by helping one group over the other, or having materials and supplies diverted by armed groups or powerful elites.  

We work with organisations delivering humanitarian and development projects in conflict situations, supporting them to minimise the potential for their projects to do harm, and to take advantage of opportunities to deliver their work in a way that actively reduces tensions.  

We have been supporting WeWorld to strengthen its conflict sensitivity since 2021, including developing a global Conflict Sensitivity Toolkit. Our work with WeWorld’s team in Cabo Delgado has included developing an understanding of conflict dynamics and conflict sensitivity risks in the communities with which WeWorld is working.  We also support WeWorld’s project team to prioritise, mitigate and monitor these risks using our Conflict Sensitive interactions matrix. 

Three key takeaways from our conflict sensitivity work in Mozambique 

Local staff embedded in communities were invaluable in helping WeWorld understand the context and how to manage risks.

WeWorld had recruited local mobilisers who lived locally to the communities with which they worked and who were tasked with getting to know the people with which they were working, visiting communities daily and spending time speaking to project participants and local leaders.

The knowledge and relationships that local mobilisers brought was essential in helping Mozambican and international staff based in the regional headquarters of Pemba understand how the project may be received in the communities, what potential risks and pitfalls would be and how to mitigate these. Providing local mobilisers with the space to give their perspective and be part of redesigning activities to mitigate risks was a valuable part of reflection and planning sessions. 

Having the space for teams to critically reflect on their work is an essential part of being conflict sensitive.

Conflict sensitivity is often approached in a very technical way, with a focus on using various tools to produce outputs (analyses, matrices etc). These tools are valuable to stimulate thinking, but it was in joint reflection sessions where the real work of deepening our conflict analysis and developing ideas for how exactly activities should be implemented or adapted happened.

It is hard to capture all the nuance of these discussions in an analysis report or a matrix, but the process itself is essential to bring a team together around understanding and implementing a project in a conflict sensitive way. In a humanitarian context like northern Mozambique, space for organisations to reflect and regroup is not a given, it needs to be created and external facilitators can be useful in that respect. 

Conflict sensitivity requires a whole-of-system approach.

Our work with WeWorld in Mozambique to date has focused on the conflict sensitivity of a specific project in Cabo Delgado, working with that project team. However, there are barriers to being conflict sensitive that a project team alone cannot remove. This can include how projects are designed in the first place, whether there is organisational appetite for making the difficult decisions to adapt or completely transform approaches, the flexibility of donors and how committed they are to being conflict sensitive.

Conflict sensitivity is something that all levels and departments of an organisation need to understand, including procurement and communications teams. It is also critical that donors operating in conflict contexts understand conflict sensitivity and that this is reflected in how they design, select and monitor projects. 

Next steps: expanding our conflict sensitivity work to new regions 

Our work with WeWorld will continue, expanding to cover WeWorld teams in Kenya and Tanzania under an EU-funded project that aims to strengthen youth participation in peacebuilding in the Swahili Coast region. PCi continues to call for and support greater attention to conflict sensitivity amongst agencies working in Northern Mozambique. 


Learn more about why we are working in Northern Mozambique on this page, and how we are working there on this page.

Moving—bottom-up—beyond the crisis in Kosovo

That was then: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg (right), meeting the Serbian president, Aleksandar Vučić, at NATO headquarters in Brussels last August

Civil-society-led dialogue will be key if disinformation is to be rebutted and trust is to be rebuilt.

Writing for Social Europe, Ian Bancroft – PCi’s Project Manager for the Western Balkans – explores the key role civil society can play to help rebuild trust, combat disinformation, and normalise relations between Kosovo and Serbia. This article was originally published on 5th July 2023.

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg (right), meeting the Serbian president, Aleksandar Vučić, at NATO headquarters in Brussels to discuss relations with Kosovo.
That was then: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg (right), meeting the Serbian president, Aleksandar Vučić, at NATO headquarters in Brussels last August, noted that the situation had improved on the ground (NATO, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Assaults on KFor peacekeepers in north Kosovo in late May, which were followed by a grenade attack on the police station in north Mitrovica and other explosions late last month, constitute the most serious violence in the area since 2011. That episode set in motion a diplomatic process culminating in the 2013 Brussels agreement, a landmark of recent European diplomacy. The situation in Kosovo however remains volatile and, without compromise on key issues, there is a very real prospect of repeated clashes.

Tensions have been brewing for a year and a half, particularly following Pristina’s decision to deploy heavily armed ‘special operations units’ to the north. Accumulated grievances over various issues, including illegal land expropriations and vehicle licence plates, led Serbs to withdraw last autumn from Kosovo institutions in the north—including the police, judiciary and local government.

This has constituted the biggest setback to integration in over a decade. Despite considerable diplomatic pressure, Kosovo’s prime minister, Albin Kurti, has resisted calls to establish the Association/Community of Serb-majority Municipalities signalled in 2013, widely viewed as a prerequisite for further progress.

The long-term cause of peace is being severely affected by such episodes, which are breeding mistrust and antagonism. For the sake of normalisation between Kosovo and Serbia—a process which should have been reinforced by the roadmap and implementation annex agreed between the two under European Union facilitation in February—civil society must urgently consider how it can contribute to de-escalating tensions and pursue confidence-building measures that can rebuild trust.

Constructive dialogue

In such times of crisis, civil society has a key role in confronting rumours and disinformation, which can further destabilise and inflame the situation. Without pushback against—or clarification of—certain claims, they are left to fester and poison the public space, as ‘social media’ amplify the flurry of speculation, reducing the scope for constructive dialogue. Such responses need to be timely and co-ordinated to limit the damage caused.  

An effective mechanism is also needed to document in an objective and trusted manner the human-rights violations reported, especially in north Kosovo and south Serbia—where respectively Serb and ethnic-Albanian minorities predominate—plus remedial measures to address the complaints. Claims and counterclaims are otherwise presented without a process to verify the incident in question.

Such a mechanism can only enjoy the trust of all citizens if it reflects the broad spectrum of communities in Kosovo and Serbia, ensuring that documented cases are communicated beyond those directly affected. In doing so, it can provide a basis for joint advocacy targeting domestic institutions and the international community, raising awareness about otherwise neglected issues.     

It is imperative too that civil society helps foster and sustain a culture of dialogue within and between communities in Kosovo and Serbia. Misunderstandings and misconceptions about specific events, acts or issues only serve to fuel grievances, particularly within communities that feel their voice is ignored or distorted. By offering broader perspectives on local sentiments, civil society can help catalyse the formulation of coherent responses.

Not merely governments

Sustainable solutions can only be reached through a dialogue that involves all elements of society, not merely the respective governments. Already various organisations from Kosovo and Serbia regularly propose constructive ideas on how to transcend the current cycle of crises. Their efforts are vital to demonstrate that a different future is possible.

The stances such actors take, however, are often deeply unpopular within their own communities, where they can face threats and intimidation for, in particular, criticising their own political leaderships. There is therefore a need for civil society in Kosovo and Serbia to publicly stand in solidarity with those willing to voice their ideas for a better tomorrow. Furthermore, such proposals are rarely heard by other communities because of how information stays in silos. Civic actors need to build networks of communication which help amplify messages within and between communities, to ensure that these are heard by as wide and diverse an audience as possible. 

Civil society can also help move beyond crisis-management. Article six of the agreement on the path to normalisation between Kosovo and Serbia supports the deepening of ‘future cooperation’ in a range of fields, including the economy, religion, environmental protection and missing persons. Civil society can rise above nationalistic discourses and engage in potentially contentious conversations, particularly where status-related issues are concerned.

This article, in particular, will come to define the extent to which relations between Serbia and Kosovo flourish in the future. Articulating where such co-operation should be developed is not a task for political elites alone. The article encourages a plurality of actors to come forward with their visions for enhancing mutually beneficial ties.

Universal norms

The role of civil society needs to be underpinned by an EU commitment to upholding universal norms—not just rhetorically, but in its approach to transforming conflict in the western Balkans. Civil-society calls for a more meaningful role in the dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia have however been frowned upon, not only by the two parties but by the EU itself. Their collective preference is for the process to remain closed and largely elite-driven—a preference reinforced by the war in Ukraine, which has only served to embolden narrow approaches justified by Realpolitik.

The EU should provide tangible support to civil-society organisations committed to improving relations between the respective communities by pursuing approaches that emphasise dialogue and collaboration. Rapidly accessible funding mechanisms, underpinned by a clear commitment to peacebuilding, can allow civil society to pursue confidence-building initiatives at short notice, reacting to quickly evolving situations on the ground. Relationships forged in moments of crisis tend to endure during more peaceful times, those bonds of solidarity contributing to trust and mutual understanding.

Civil society must also take the initiative in outlining its own contribution to normalisation—a process that goes well beyond the political dimensions of the dispute. There are areas where dialogue has unforeseen or intended consequences, or where blindspots mean specific problems go unresolved, which civil society can help ameliorate.

Furthermore, ensuring implementation proceeds as intended requires active civil-society monitoring and engagement. Where there is a loss of confidence in those leading the dialogue, including in the facilitator itself, civil society can help through complementary processes that transform relations within and between communities.

Relationships and connections

Ultimately, a grand vision for the future of relations between Kosovo and Serbia will only come from a broad-based movement of civil society representing various constituencies, including those minorities often ignored in such debates. It requires leaving aside the present frictions and thinking more broadly about the relationships and connections they want to see flourish in the coming years and decades. 

The current situation threatens fundamentally to undermine the recent agreement on the path to normalisation between Kosovo and Serbia. Failure to act now could see relations deteriorate further and the process of integration unravel to the extent that all the gains from the 2013 agreement, whose tenth anniversary has just passed, are lost. Civil society has a vital role to play—but it needs too to reflect seriously and creatively on how best it can serve the wider public.

No Stability Without Peace: an initiative for peace in Libya

Serein Sharda, grant officer for Peaceful Change initiative in Libya, writes about her experience of working on the No Stability Without Peace initiative.

Serein is pictured on the left with members of the PCi team at the closing forum on 12th March 2023
Serein is pictured on the left with members of the PCi team at the closing forum on 12th March 2023

Peaceful Change Initiative (PCi) works to promote social cohesion and peace in Libya, since it began operating in the country in 2013. My name is Serein Sharda, and I have been working as a Grant officer with PCi since 2021. My work as a peacebuilder is different every day; some days I help people write, develop, and propose initiatives and some days my role requires brainstorming with grant recipients on how resolve conflict and improve the quality of life in their area. I am always providing people with skills, support, and advice. One of the recent grants I was responsible for is called No Stability Without Peace.

How It Started  

In September 2022, nine of the forty-two Social Peace Partnerships (SPP) which run across Libya met together for the first time. These SPPs were chosen because they now run independently and are sustainable in delivering peace in their area after years of training and development with PCi’s support. This gave them an opportunity to connect, network, and learn from each other’s experiences. Working together also gives the SPPs the ability to have influence on a national level.

At the meeting, four SPPs in the western region: Sooq Al-Jomma, Tripoli center, Sabratha and Bani Walid, agreed to hold dialog sessions in each municipality about national reconciliation and what is needed to achieve peace and social cohesion in Libya. They also wanted to involve their communities involved in achieving stability and peace.

Social Peace Partnerships bring together a diverse group of local people, with a shared vision of Libya becoming a safe and inclusive country. Members include representatives from the local authority, civil society leaders, elders, community leaders, business owners and anyone who is interested in peacebuilding. PCi builds the skills and capacity of the SPP members through various trainings so they can solve community issues and develop an ongoing response mechanism to community conflict. PCi also helps to build positive relationships between the community and the local authorities. 

Preparation leading to the forum  

The initiative, funded by PCi, was called No Stability Without Peace to emphasize that peace is the perquisite to all that we wish for in Libya.

The SPPs then implemented dialogue sessions with 20-40 participants in the four municipalities. They discussed what is needed to achieve stability: the role of citizens, and the role of municipalities. The sessions were attended by municipal representatives, influential leaders, and government officials. There was a focus on the importance of spreading peace and tolerance, and opportunities for national reconciliation. I was personally surprised to hear discussions on the current situation and how we each have a role to play in achieving peace.

Next, SPP members from the four municipalities gathered in Tripoli and presented a summary with ten recommendations. The recommendations included: supporting efforts toward national reconciliation, providing opportunities for women and youth to engage in politics and assume leadership positions, support for civil society organisations, and supporting young business owners.

To spread awareness of the importance of national reconciliation and social cohesion, we initiated an online campaign through Facebook sharing updates on the No Stability Without Peace initiative. I was astonished at the feedback we received. Many people wanted to volunteer and be part of the peacebuilding campaign.

Closing forum

On 12th of March 2023, the initiative’s closing forum was in Tripoli. We were pleased to see many persons of influence join the forum. Participants included Ibrahim Al-Madni, national reconciliation Advisor in the Presidential Council. Osama Al-Ahmar, Head of the peacebuilding and reconciliation pillar in the Presidential Council. Saliba Charles the Maltese ambassador. Patrick Merienne Head of Peace and Security at the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and number of mayors, municipal; members and activists from the four municipalities.

There was an official speech from the presidential council thanking the team for their efforts and looking forward to working together on the recommendations. There were also artistic presentations on peace and reconciliation by people from all over Libya and a short video showing the alternative of peace, which is war. I could tell from the facial expressions of the participants, that regardless of what might divide them, they all agree they do not want to return to war.

Speach from Presidential Council member

The presentation of the ten recommendations on promoting peace and social cohesion was followed by a dialog session with the Presidential Council members and others to discuss mechanisms to implement them. I was pleased that both Al Jazeera Mubasher and Libya Al Ahrar TV covered the forum.

Although the results of the initiative were encouraging, efforts from other Libyan stake holders are needed to continue building stability and peace. I am honoured and pleased to be a part of this work

CSOs from Kosovo and Serbia meet key EU interlocutors

CSOs from Kosovo and Serbia meet in Brussels

A delegation of civil society from Kosovo and Serbia had the opportunity to meet key interlocutors from various EU institutions in Brussels.

CSOs from kosovo and serbia meet in Brussels

A delegation of civil society from Kosovo and Serbia had the opportunity to meet key interlocutors from various EU institutions in Brussels. Members of the Kosovo-Serbia Rapid Response Mechanism presented ideas about the role civil society can play given the current tensions on the ground and hopes for a comprehensive agreement between Belgrade and Pristina.

The delegation met with the respective rapporteurs for Kosovo and Serbia, Ms. Viola von Cramon-Taubadel and Mr. Vladimír Bilčík, plus the team of the EU Special Representative for the Belgrade-Pristina Dialogue, Miroslav Lajčák. They also met with officials from the Directorate-General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations (DG NEAR) and the European External Action Service (EEAS).

Of note, several interlocutors spoke of a sense of momentum that apparently exists within member states regarding the EU enlargement process. This comes as something of a surprise given the profound feeling in the Western Balkans that accession is stalled. Regular perception surveys show growing ambivalence towards the EU path, particularly in Serbia, reenforcing the need for a more strategic approach to communications to reassert not only the European perspective, but to reiterate that the EU remains the region’s largest donor and trading partner.

The participants – whilst acknowledging the need for confidentiality during negotiations – raised concerns about the lack of transparency regarding both the structure and content of the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue. They proposed to engage with their respective governments to request that more information be placed into the public domain. Furthermore, concerns were raised about the dilution of reporting on Chapter 35, covering the normalisation of relations between Serbia and Kosovo, particularly the intermediate benchmarks.

The participants also reiterated that civil society should be seen a resource and an ally both in the dialogue and in broader reform processes. With the relations in specific communities, civil society offers early warning capabilities that can help identify specific grievances and help reduce the scope for misunderstandings by relaying perspectives around an issue from local actors.

The civil society organisations reaffirmed their commitment to complementing and amplifying messages that are grounded in the need for compromise, confronting their own governments where needed to challenge specific narratives about some aspect of the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue. This was deemed increasingly imperative due to recent tensions in north Kosovo, including the deployment of Special Operations Units and the resignation of Kosovo Serbs from Kosovo institutions, and discussions regarding a comprehensive agreement between Serbia and Kosovo.

The Kosovo-Serbia Rapid Response Mechanism will continue to meet on a quarterly basis to formulate joint approaches to the problems affecting communities in Serbia and Kosovo. In addition, they will meet on an ad hoc basis as when required to, for instance, voice their concerns about a particular instance of divisive rhetoric or an event that threatens to harm the very environment in which dialogue is taking place.  

Peacebuilding in 2022: what we learned

peacebuilding in action

In 2022, violent conflict was at its highest since World War II, leading to record levels of forced displacement and global humanitarian needs. In this light, the imperative for building peace has become ever more urgent.

peacebuilding in action

As a result of escalating civil and political unrest, “peacefulness” deteriorated for the third consecutive year, according to the Global Peace Index. Two billion people live in conflict-affected areas around the world due to ongoing and new conflict outbreaks. Further, conflict and violence have displaced an estimated 84 million people.   

Peaceful Change initiative works on programmes in North Africa, Europe, the South Caucasus region, and more recently in Mozambique. We are witness to the deterioration of peace and the need for peacebuilding in these contexts. 

For example, in Europe, due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, one in four Ukrainians are now either out of the country or displaced within its borders. The number of refugees from Ukraine seeking safety and support is just under the eight million mark.  

In Mozambique, the armed conflict in Cabo Delgado affects thousands of families. More than one million people have been internally displaced due to violence perpetrated by non-state armed groups. The severe food shortage, a direct impact of the climate crisis, which is gravely affecting Mozambique, has worsened this conflict. 

But, in the darkness there is light. After 10 years of working alongside others to build peace in Libya, we can see the positive impact of peacebuilding first hand. In 2022, the country recorded the largest increase in peacefulness in the North African region and the largest improvement globally. 

Building peace means encouraging better, more inclusive governance, strengthening, and supporting social cohesion, resilience, and trust within and between communities. The work of peacebuilders is critical to breaking the cycles of violent conflict and building the institutions and relationships that support long-term and sustainable peace. 

As we look back at 2022, we are proud of the work of peacebuilders everywhere. This has been a year marked by achievements and challenges for Peaceful Change initiative, which you can read more about in our Annual Report. Here, we want to highlight a few of the lessons we have learned through building peace in 2022. 

Integrating gender into community-level peacebuilding is not a linear process 

Since 2013, Peaceful Change initiative has been supporting community-level peacebuilding initiatives in more than 40 Libyan municipalities. Last year, we launched a report which captures our experience and lessons learned from nearly 10 years of integrating gender into our peacebuilding programme in Libya. Some of the key lessons learned are highlighted below. 

Talking about gender in context-sensitive ways through approaches co-designed with Libyan project participants and partners is key. In practice, this means, for example, using cultural and religious references and role models to make the case for women’s participation and leadership.  

Working with both men and women ensures community buy-in, support from men who act as ‘allies’, and mitigates potential risks arising from challenging social and gender norms. Additionally, providing opportunities and support to women, with grants and training for example, to strengthen and practice leadership skills is key to increasing their participation, confidence and visibility. 

Our gender mainstreaming approach has been successful in increasing the number of women participating in project activities, improving the quality of their participation, and ensuring the representation of women from a diverse range of backgrounds.  

Progress, however, has not been linear; whenever a crisis occurs we see setbacks in women’s participation. Additionally, projects designed and carried out by women are not always transformative with regards to gender roles. Building on the learning we have gathered to date we will continue to integrate gender into our peacebuilding programmes in Libya. 

Solidarity can be forged even in times of high tensions 

Through 2022, Peaceful Change initiative’s Western Balkans team has been working with a diverse group of civil society organisations from Kosovo and Serbia in order to develop a Rapid Response Mechanism capable of reacting to instances of divisive rhetoric or destabilising incidents which can negatively affect relations within and between communities. 

By sharing perspectives on specific issues, the mechanism has helped deepen understanding about the sources of grievance within particularly communities, whilst reducing the scope for a lack of awareness or misinformation.  

Additionally, the joint stances developed and adopted by the group demonstrate how solidarity can be forged even in times of high tensions. Some examples of such solidarity include a call for new constructive voices and an expression of profound concern about the impact of a lack of progress in the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue on local communities. 

Conflict sensitive aid is paramount in Northern Mozambique 

In late 2022, we visited Mozambique for the first time, at the request of one of our partners in the humanitarian and development sector. Visiting the conflict-affected Cabo Delgado region gave us first-hand experience of the difficult and complex situations that international organisations there must navigate when delivering aid, and the vital importance of a conflict-sensitive approach. 

Many humanitarian and development organisations have been working in northern Mozambique for decades, but in recent years have found themselves working amid a fast-moving and unpredictable security situation. We have been working to generate a conflict analysis, including an assessment of conflict-related risks that aid agencies may encounter, and strategies they can take to mitigate these risks.  

We are providing conflict sensitivity training and guidance, as well as guidance on adapting aid programmes so that they can measurably contribute to better social cohesion. We will look to expand this work in 2023 to meet a growing demand. 

Ukrainian civil society inspires action amidst tragedy 

Peaceful Change initiative last worked in Ukraine in 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic, working with communities in Kherson and Donetsk who today find themselves at the frontline of the war or in areas under occupation. At the time we took great inspiration from the participants in our work, for their determination to contribute to building a democratic post-Maidan Ukraine and to their preparedness to transcend differences and seek to understand compatriots with different views about the past, the present, and the future. Their painstaking efforts to rebuild relationships after the military violence of 2014 took a definitive setback with the Russian invasion of 24 February 2022. This is in addition to the incalculable loss of life and physical destruction that we see every day.  

Our Ukrainian partners, remain an inspiration re-affirming again their commitment to build a united country, at the foundations of which will be an active civil society that brings represents and serves all parts of its community also applying the skills and values of peacebuilding.

We will join efforts with our partners in 2023, working on social cohesion issues in some of the communities that, while untouched by the military invasion, have been at the forefront of upheaval as a result of the war. Peaceful Change initiative will also work to develop models of engaging citizens for inclusive recovery in those places that have felt the full brunt of Russia’s assault. 

Looking ahead to 2023 

Looking ahead to 2023, we will continue to ensure our peacebuilding work is locally driven as we expand our Conflict Sensitivity work to Southern and Eastern Africa region. We also aim to support civil society and peacebuilders across Europe and South Caucasus region to address the heightened risks and vulnerabilities in the wake of the Russian war in Ukraine.  

Above all, we want to thank the organisations we work with, our team and our funders, without which our peacebuilding work is not possible. 

Integrating Gender into community-level peacebuilding: Lessons from Libya

Since 2013, Peaceful Change initiative has been supporting community-level peacebuilding initiatives in more than 40 Libyan municipalities. This report captures our experience and lessons learned from nearly 10 years of integrating gender into our programme. Key lessons include: 

  • Using a gender lens to analyse conflict was key to increasing community understanding of why women’s agency in local peace and conflict should not be underestimated 
  • Understanding interests and needs of diverse groups of women helped to offer relevant incentives for them to engage in local peacebuilding activities 
  • Working with men on their attitudes and behaviours and identifying ‘male allies’ helped to create a safer space for women to participate 
  • Funding and opportunities for women to strengthen their leadership skills and implement their own initiatives represented an important tool to deepen women’s participation 
  • Safely raising the visibility of women peace leaders helped shift social perceptions towards women and their role in peace and decision making 

Download the full report

Find out more about the Social Peace and Local Development (SPLD) programme