An explanatory note for the consultation process:

This first draft of GPPAC’s Global Action Agenda is intended for worldwide consultation with all those involved in GPPAC and others concerned to promote prevention, peacebuilding and a more peaceful and just world. It will be revised in mid-May by the drafting task force of GPPAC’s International Steering Group. It will then be re-circulated and CSOs will be invited to endorse the final document. It will serve as the basis for the international conference at UN Headquarters, 19-21 July 2005, and help to inform the development of the field and policy priorities for some time to come.

I. About the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict

1. The Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC) is a world-wide civil society-led process to generate and build a new international consensus on peacebuilding and the prevention of violent conflict. While governments have primary responsibility to protect civilians and prevent violence, the complexity, scale and diversity of conflict mean that no single entity, on its own, can ensure peace. A comprehensive network of relationships and actions is needed. GPPAC works on strengthening civil society networks for peace and security by linking local, national, regional and global levels of action and effective engagement with governments, the UN system and regional organisations. This, in turn, supports the potential for solidarity work and global mobilisation to strengthen capacities for peace and justice.

2. GPPAC aims to support a shift from reaction to prevention through the following goals:

• To create a sustainable network of individuals and groups committed to prevention and peacebuilding at global, regional, and national levels. This network will include multistakeholder partnerships involving diverse civil society organisations (CSOs), governments, Regional Organisations and the United Nations to enable effective engagement.
  
  
• To develop and work towards the implementation of a policy change agenda, as articulated in this Global Action Agenda and Regional Action Agendas, that will strengthen the effectiveness of conflict prevention and peacebuilding.
  
  
• To raise public awareness around the world and generate constituencies who actively support human security as an alternative to militarism and are informed about prevention and peacebuilding and the important role of civil society in achieving it. 3. GPPAC was initiated in 2002 in response to the UN Secretary-General’s call to CSOs in his

4. This draft Global Action Agenda has emerged from this process and reflects the themes, priorities and recommendations identified in the regional action agendas. The focus is on promoting human security and making a shift to prevention through effective partnerships, with guiding principles and values that should be at the core of practice. There are recommendations for addressing the conditions that give rise to violent conflict and for systems and practices to respond to it more effectively if it emerges. It concludes with suggestions for specific mechanisms, activities and resources needed to enhance the capacities of CSOs, governments, the UN and regional organisations to pursue prevention and build more just and peaceful societies. While this document is a civil society agenda, it can serve as a framework for developing programmes of action for years to come.

II. Goals for Global Action: GPPAC’s Key Messages

Human security: the interdependence of development, human rights, peace & security

5. We are committed to promoting the security of people: their physical safety; their socio-economic well-being; respect for their dignity and political and cultural identity as individuals and as members of communities; and the protection and promotion of their rights and fundamental freedoms in the home, in the community, in their country and in the wider world.

6. We affirm that the security of people is as important as the security of states. We believe that each has the potential to be mutually reinforcing. Promoting human security can lead to a shift from a security paradigm based on the balance of power and military alliances to one based on mutual interdependence and cooperation. We welcome the UN Secretary-General’s observation that: “The world must advance the causes of security, development and human rights together, otherwise none will succeed. Humanity will not enjoy security without development, it will not enjoy development without security, and it will not enjoy either without respect for human rights.”1

7. Poverty eradication is essential to achieve human security and dignity. Furthermore, poverty and violent conflict are often intrinsically interrelated. Many conflicts are deeply rooted in social, economic and cultural disparities, especially in the context of unequal access to economic and social power and resources. Violent conflict and war seriously erode and impede development prospects.

According to the Millennium Project report, of the 34 countries furthest from achieving the goals, 22 are emerging from conflict. Prevention and sustainable peacebuilding are therefore necessary to achieve the Millennium Development Goals; fulfilling the MDGs can, in turn, address some of the root  causes of conflict and promote human security.

The responsibility to prevent: making the shift from reaction to prevention

Prevention strategies must be able to respond flexibly to each of these situations.

11. As the UN Secretary-General has argued “investment in prevention, peacemaking, peacekeeping and peacebuilding can save millions of lives.”3 We agree with the International Commission onIntervention and State Sovereignty4 that states have a responsibility to prevent. The international community should ensure the effectiveness of less intrusive and less coercive preventive measures by devoting more commitment and resources to them. Governments and IGOs need to mainstream prevention and constructive conflict management as fundamental goals of their security institutions and instruments, as well as of their other policies and programmes. This requires looking beyond short-term considerations to ensure a re-orientation towards preparedness for prevention and to addressing basic human needs and human rights. Instead of putting most resources into methods for reacting to crises, when it is often too late to act effectively without the use of force, we should focus on addressing the factors that enable them to become deadly. Historically, the emphasis has been on developing capacity for military response. The emphasis now needs to be on strengthening the institutional capacity for nonviolent civilian response – and ensuring coherent and predictable support for all phases of peace operations to respond effectively if armed conflict does occur.

Prevention and peacebuilding requires effective partnerships.

12. We believe these goals can best be achieved through the creation multi-level partnerships among CSOs, governments and multilateral organizations, among others. We aim to engage with each other and, as appropriate, with governments and inter-governmental organisations, to address the issues and challenges identified in this Global Action Agenda.

13. Over recent decades, civilians have bourn the brunt of wars and violent conflict. Men and women all over the world have responded to these challenges with creativity and dedication. CSOs have a broad range of roles from relief and development, to community-building and local conflict resolution, to advocacy and civic engagement, to nonviolent accompaniment. CSOs have engaged in peacemaking by promoting dialogue and peaceful resolution of conflict, as well as taking care of the rehabilitation, healing and reconciliation needs of survivors of conflict. They are often effective in creating safe spaces where people from all parts of society can come together and work in meaningful ways toward a better future. Many CSO actors are close to the conflicts that they seek to address. This proximity affords them access to information and insights that state actors may not have. In some situations, CSOs are more acceptable to armed and opposition groups than representatives of governments and IGOs, allowing them to play a positive role. Furthermore, civil society plays a significant role in building trust and strengthening networks so that this ‘social capital’ can foster peace and development.

14. Civil society can therefore have a major role in bringing about the shift to prevention. We draw inspiration from earlier civil society initiatives to promote global peace, particularly noting the first Hague Peace Conference in 1899 and the most recent landmark event in 1999 which have set agendas and mobilised attention and action to address them. We aim to both advocate policy changes to address the structural factors that generate violent conflict as well as work in partnerships to respond to specific situations.

15. We affirm the important role of women in prevention and peacebuilding. We advocate the equal participation and full involvement of women in all efforts to maintain and promote peace and security and thus the need for increased involvement in roles at decision-making levels.

III. Guiding principles and values

16. The individuals and organisations endorsing this document believe that the following principles and values are of central importance for promoting sustainable peace and justice and endeavour to fulfil them in their practice. The development of professional ethical standards–possibly assisted by a voluntary peer review mechanism–is a challenge for CSOs working with conflict. GPPAC aims to generate consensus around these standards and this will be one of the focal points for the conference at UN Headquarters in July 2005.

17. Achieving just peace by peaceful means. Preventing violent conflict should be pursued to the fullest extent by all peaceful means. We need to develop proactive, nonviolent and cooperative methods of peaceful engagement in response to emerging tensions and crises. Human rights and the quest for justice and dignity are at the heart of our ethical and political standards of action. Prevention and peacebuilding initiatives should contribute to achieving justice in multiple dimensions, including restorative, distributive, gender, and environmental justice. CSOs must lead by example in their respect for international human rights. We should continually engage in critical examination of how our own policies, practices and programs can contribute to fulfilling human rights and dignity. We should strive to act with integrity at all times.

23. Accountability. As the power and influence of CSOs grows so does our obligation to be accountable, especially to the communities in which we work. This is reflected in what we do, how and why we do it, and how we manage the resources that are entrusted to us. We recognise the importance of developing norms of responsibility at all levels and within all institutional settings.

IV. Structural prevention: action to generate ‘just peace’

26. Equitable and sustainable development

a) All states must recommit themselves to the goals of eradicating poverty, achieving sustained economic growth and promoting sustainable development. Donor countries that currently fall short of the UN 0.7 per cent gross national product target for ODA should establish a timetable for reaching it. Lender governments and the international financial institutions should provide highly indebted poor countries with greater debt relief, longer rescheduling and improved access to global markets.

b) Some areas of trade policy and investment promotion exacerbate the structural and immediate risks of violent conflict. Economic and social global governance institutions and processes should be reformed to bring better coordination and coherence to policies and programmes on trade, finance and economic development. We support the ‘Make Poverty History’ campaign’s efforts to promote trade justice. Governments and IGOs need to ensure policy coherence to promote development and peace. They should involve CSOs in designing broader policy frameworks that are strategically coherent with prevention and peacebuilding objectives.

c) Member states should develop standards to regulate and guide the conduct of private companies in at-risk areas, especially those of extractive industries and private security companies. These should reflect and build on existing standards on transparency and accountability in revenue payments (Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative), responsible provision of security (Voluntary Principles on Human Rights and Security) and human rights (UN Draft Norms on the Responsibilities of TNCs and other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights). Additionally, member states should actively promote the positive contribution multinationals can make to peacebuilding by encouraging the adoption of best practice guidelines in investing in ‘at-risk’ states. Furthermore, there is increasing understanding of the role domestic private sectors can play both in driving war economies but also in making a substantial contribution to conflict prevention and resolution. Member states should explicitly recognise this positive and negative potential and seek to develop integrated policies and strategies which maximise the former and minimise the latter. Ideally, such policies would be a combination of regulation and positive encouragement with ‘Smart’ sanctions one option for those who exploit and exacerbate war for their own profit whilst other punitive measures can include public ‘naming and shaming’, with CSOs stimulating consumer action as appropriate.

d) In countries in transition where state assets are being privatised, mechanisms – such as independent commissions of economists – should be put instituted to ensure best value for the public good and promote equitable outcomes for those communities most affected by the privatisation.

e) Conflict-sensitive approaches and pro-prevention strategies should be mainstreamed into all policy frameworks, especially Common Country Assessments, UN Development Assistance Frameworks, and Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers. These frameworks are important instruments for addressing the structural causes of conflict and promoting sustainable development. Conflict-sensitivity should therefore be integrated into the policy development process for each country, regardless of whether it is or has recently been associated with a crisis. Ensure effective participation in the policy development process of those who will be affected by decisions, including women, youth and minorities.

f) More than $10 billion annually is needed to stem the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Leaders of affected countries need to mobilise resources, commit funds, and engage civil society in disease control efforts, in partnership with the international community.

a) All States should rededicate themselves to full and consistent compliance with all international norms and standards. They should ratify all human rights and humanitarian treaties and fully comply with reporting requirements. As needed, domestic mechanisms should be strengthened to ensure implementation of international law.

b) States should agree stronger measures to sanction those who violate international laws and standards, including the Geneva Conventions, and insist on a collective security system based on rule of law. Civil society has to bring pressure to bear on states and mobilize public opinion on the need to make international norms applicable in all states so that everyone everywhere can fully enjoy all their rights and fundamental freedoms.

a) Governments must intensify their efforts to comprehensively implement the Beijing Programme of Action to achieve gender equality. We strongly support UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security that specifically addresses the impact of war on women and girls and their contributions to sustainable peace. We call on relevant decisionmakers and agencies to resource its full and consistent implementation. Governments, international organisations and NGOs should ensure equal representation of women and men at all levels and in all institutions.

b) Governments and UN bodies have obligations to ensure the effective participation of minorities and indigenous peoples in decisions that affect them. Where needed, there should be proactive measures taken to ensure their access to consultations and decision-making processes at the local, national and global levels. Measures should take into account diversity within groups and the effective participation of women and girls. The principle of free, prior and informed consent should be at the center of decision making processes involving indigenous peoples’ lands, territories and natural resources and their economic, social and cultural development.

c) Governments should develop new democratic institutions that enable direct participation of the poor and other marginalised people in meaningful decision-making and action to eliminate the root causes of violent conflict.

d) CSOs can engage in nonviolent social activism to foster empowerment of excluded groups and to direct attention to legitimate grievances. CSOs can foster public discussion and policy dialogue to clarify perceptions and needs and to develop agreements on ways to address them.

29. Governance and political systems. CSOs should work with all levels of government to strengthen institutional capacity and practices for good governance as a key facet of conflict prevention and long-term peacebuilding activities. They should aim to ensure free and fair elections, accountability, transparency, informed citizen participation, respect for diversity, the impartial application of law, management of tensions through constructive dialogue, and the provision of basic services in an equitable manner.

b) Governments must commit to fostering and abiding by the rule of law. CSOs can play an important role in promoting public awareness and expectations of rule of law, engaging in policy dialogue to assist its practical fulfilment, and monitoring compliance. We support the UN Secretary-General’s recommendation for a dedicated Rule of Law Assistance Unit to be created in the proposed Peacebuilding Support Office and urge that assistance also be proactively offered to countries potentially vulnerable to armed conflict.

c) Legislation and practice should enable civil society activities, including by fostering the registration of independent civil society associations and ‘NGOs’.

a) Increased attention, technical assistance and funding should be directed toward national capacity building. These can include commissions of inquiry, national reconciliation commissions, and platforms for national dialogue—including through legislative systems—to address larger systemic issues; as well as systems to address specific cases through alternative dispute resolution (mediation, ombudsman and adjudication services) and mainstream state institutions, such as the legal system

b) CSOs can contribute to the development of these capacities by contributing comparative learning, knowledge and skills to make these systems as effective as possible.

V. Operational prevention: action to prevent violence & resolve conflict

a) GPPAC aims to develop an integrated global network based on solidarity of CSOs that can cooperate to identify appropriate conflict prevention responses and to mobilize the political will necessary for timely and effective action, including through the methods identified below.

b) CSOs in conflict-affected areas should facilitate public discussion of these situations in order to generate ideas for how to address the situation and mobilise creative and constructive responses.

c) Integrated systems need to be enabled through appropriate technologies – including networked communication systems – and potentially with new institutional mechanisms such as regional observatories.

d) Efforts and resources are needed to implement Action Plan for the Prevention of Genocide. In particular, the new Special Advisor for the Prevention of Genocide should be supported with the necessary staffing and resources to be effective in fulfilling his important role.

e) Member States should support a more systematised approach to collaboration between the UN,regional organisations and CSOs at headquarters and in the field in order to integrate early warning and early response systems. These should involve key stakeholders and others with special expertise to share information, strengthen joint analysis, identify options and opportunities, and support needed to implement strategies. There should be initiatives to:

i. Establish regular and transparent interfaces (‘contact points’) between UN Resident Coordinators / SRSGs and relevant local, regional and international CSOs to exchange information and develop complementary strategies. These could include formal arrangements for cooperation in data collection, analysis and strategy development to ensure that these mechanisms draw on the unique knowledge and capacities of all relevant actors. Existing experiences with these arrangements should be assessed to learn lessons for the future evolution of these systems.

ii. Strengthen the capacity of local, national and regional CSOs–including in the media sector– through training and ongoing support to identify and analyse the causes and dynamics of emerging conflicts. This must include training in gender-based indicators and gendersensitive strategies for prevention and peacebuilding.

iii. Enhance multi-track network structures that create the social infrastructure for information sharing, collaborative action and solidarity. Well-respected CSOs with specialised skills and capacities may be best placed to develop locally appropriate instruments in cooperation with regional / international counterparts and / or with inter-governmental organisations.

To respond more effectively to the complex array of conflict dynamics in West Africa, a Memorandum of Understanding to cooperate in early warning analysis has been agreed between the sub-regional organisation ECOWAS, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the civil society network West Africa Network for Peacebuilding (WANEP). 35.

peaceful settlement of disputes before they escalate to violence is the most cost-effective and sustainable method, mechanisms at the national, regional and international levels are typically under-developed and mostly reactive to crises. Greater priority is needed for non-military, noncoercive and cooperative forms of early-stage preventive action. This can include facilitating deescalatory dialogue and reaching agreements to address sources of conflict in ways that are consistent with internationally agreed standards.

a) Measures to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes under Chapter VI of UN Charter should be strengthened, with greater emphasis on preventive diplomacy as specified in Article

34. This should include situations involving non-state actors. Parties should be proactively encouraged to seek conciliation, arbitration or adjudication on key issues, including through the International Court of Justice if applicable.

b) UN should play a leading role in proactively responding to the potential for conflict by convening multi-stakeholder dialogue. The aim should be to open channels of communication, to clarify issues and develop joint strategies, and to help implement those strategies by mobilising the necessary resources from throughout the international community.

c) UN Secretary-General’s good offices role and capacities for preventive mediation and early stage dispute resolution should be strengthened by providing additional resources. Staff experienced in conflict analysis and resolution can offer assistance by:

(a) conducting analysis and developing proposals; and

(b) mediating / facilitating dialogue at early stages of prevention, including through the use of shuttle diplomacy and other formal and informal meetings with leaders of government and opposition factions / militant groups. They should maintain links with CSOs who have complementary capacities.

d) Further support is needed for innovative initiatives like the Joint UN Development Programme / Department of Political Affairs Programme on Building National Capacity for Conflict Prevention to provide timely assistance in at-risk situations.

f) Greater resources are needed to provide access to expert assistance on key disputed substantive issues and on confidence-building measures. Respected groups can study the situation, elicit views and ideas from stakeholders, and offer advice on principles, strategies and programmes to address challenges. As appropriate, they can also be involved in monitoring implementation.

g) The international community should have a pool of resources to quickly provide strategically targeted funding and other assistance to rapidly implement initiatives and programmes to address key concerns and build confidence that a better future is possible.

a) CSOs should continue initiatives to build understanding and trust and to reach agreements on matters within their control, as well as to influence policies concerning the wider context that affects them. Where needed, they can form national networks or platforms to develop shared strategies and strengthen influence.

b) Greater effort is needed to learn from the many innovative experiences of community-based peace monitors and mediators who help to prevent violence at the local level, so as to inspire others facing similar challenges. Technical, financial and political resources should be available as needed to support their efforts.

c) Outsiders can encourage a supportive environment and, as needed, resources to enable these local capacities for peace, while being careful not to overwhelm or displace them.

d) Action is needed to help increase the basic safety of local peace actors. Greater priority should be given to human rights monitoring presences and protective accompaniment, as well as unified international condemnation of all violators with immediate action to prosecute those responsible.

a) To ensure that the mandate and concept of operation are appropriate to address needs and build on local resources, pre-deployment assessment missions should include systematic processes of consulting with CSOs (including those close to the potential or actual armed parties) both inside and outside the country and actively involve the UN country team.

b) Mandates must include a commitment to gender equality. Gender experts and expertise should be included at all levels and in all aspects of peace operations, including in technical surveys and the design of concepts of operation, training, staffing and programmes.

c) We support the Secretary-General’s proposal to create interlocking system of peacekeeping capacities so the UN can partner with relevant regional organisations and thus increase rapid response capacity. There should be coherent and integrated mandates and leadership of peacebuilding and peacekeeping efforts, which often need to happen simultaneously or overlap. Priority should be given to establishing mechanisms for cooperation and clear channels of communication among national, regional and international organisations working on peace – possibly through the development of regularised multi-track forums.

d) This system should interlink with civilian peace services: teams of experts with specialised skills who can be rapidly deployed in emerging crisis situations to support local peaceful actors and, where necessary, provide a protective accompaniment for local people. The UN should develop rosters of specialists, and work with existing services make shared lists, taking into account the importance of cultural and gender differences as a key resource of such teams.

e) Peace operations must ensure the comprehensive protection of civilians and non-combatants, including from sexual violence and exploitation. The Secretary-General’s ‘zero tolerance’ policy on the behaviour of peacekeepers should be rigorously enforced and violators brought to justice.

f) Responsibility to protect should be pursued in accordance with international law and in a consistent manner, as articulated by the ICISS Commission and by criteria advocated the Secretary-General, consistent with Article 51 of the UN Charter. We note the primary responsibility to prevent, along with the responsibilities to react and to rebuild. Any use of force is only justifiable as a last resort.

g) Civil society, governments and IGOs should build upon existing programs and develop further initiatives for the comprehensive disarmament, demobilization and social and economic reintegration (DDR) of former fighters. These programmes should be tailored to meet the specific needs of women and men, girls and boys. These programs must be well-planned, adequately funded and sufficiently integrated into the broader post-conflict reconstruction and rehabilitation process.

h) The UN should spearhead fundraising for prevention and peacebuilding activities modelled on similar systems for humanitarian response mechanisms.

i. This should include joint appeals to donors to support integrated programmes of CSOs and international organisations. Governments should create a trust fund for rapid implementation of post-settlement peacebuilding activities.

ii. As standard operational practice, CSOs from conflict-affected communities should be enabled to participate actively in processes to develop funding priorities and plans, such as the Consolidated Appeals Process (CAPs) and the Post-Conflict Needs Assessment.

iii. CAPs should explicitly include initiatives to promote ‘social cohesion’ and ‘peacebuilding’. OCHA should be encouraged to use flexible modalities, such as regional CAPS so as to be proactive in responding to emerging situations.

a) CSOs can engage in processes to identify and debate key issues that should be addressed in the negotiating agenda and, as relevant, to deliberate substantive measures to address them. A range of modalities can be used, including multi-sectoral forums convening diverse civil society groupings that may have differing views on conflict issues.

b) Efforts should be made to strengthen the capacity of CSO representatives to engage effectively in peace talks, including through training in negotiation and policy formulation as well as in the substantive issues that will be addressed in the talks. This can involve resources, skills training, and advisors, as well as opportunities to learn from peace processes elsewhere.

d) Renewed efforts and practical commitments should be made by parties to conflict, international mediators, and the donor community to ensure that women are represented equally at the decision-making level in formal peace negotiations.

a) There should be strong channels of communication between the range of actors involved – including political, humanitarian and legal-judicial – to develop joint policies and strategies to ensure that the demands of justice and peace do not compete. The wishes of local people must be central in determining the most appropriate modalities. Public dialogue and discussion about these difficult issues should be fostered to develop appropriate responses.

b) In addition to fully supporting overall modalities for reconciliation, governments should strengthen the capacity of national justice systems for war crime trials and cooperate fully with international judicial machinery. Governments should ensure free access to documentation about the past and undertake initiatives for tracing missing persons and mass graves. They should also create the legal preconditions for places of remembrance and memorials. Funding is needed for reparations and support for the victims’ families as well as trauma healing and psycho-social support, with special attention given to the special needs of women and children.

c) CSOs play a crucial role in reconciliation processes on local and regional levels. Efforts are needed to further develop capacity and practices to deal with the past in a constructive way on an individual, family and community level in a fully participatory and inclusive manner. They can undertake research and documentation projects to make an independent record to help those in society to engage constructively in discussions about the past. CSOs can work with the media and educational institutions of all levels to generate an environment conducive to dealing with the past.

d) IGOs should support legitimate local actors to engage in reconciliation dialogue in good faith and offer appropriate, sustained protection and support.

40. Historical experiences of violent conflict – particularly when widespread atrocities occurred – can leave legacies that continue to poison contemporary relations and increase the risk of renewed conflict.

a) The successor governments of states involved in these conflicts should recognize responsibility for past acts and demonstrate remorse by making formal apologies and, as appropriate, symbolic and / or material reparations. They should support initiatives to transmit facts and memories to future generations. These can include memorials, peace museums, and commemorative events.

b) Joint commissions of historians should be formed to research the past and develop a common framework of factually-based accounts of disputed histories and contentious issues so as to provide balanced information and analysis for educational material and public debates.

c) Governments, involving relevant experts, should develop education curricula and textbooks that are sensitive to these histories. Where appropriate, educationalists and historians should collaborate on the development of common regional textbooks and materials.

VI. Engaging CSOs, governments, the UN & regional organisations in effectivepartnerships for prevention and peacebuilding

a) As an initial step, there should be a series of regional consultations around GPPAC regional action agendas involving senior officials from the UN, regional organisations, governments and the CSO networks to explore challenges and ways of implementing the agenda.

Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (www.gppac.net) – First Draft GAA, 20 April 05 12

b) To focus international attention and raise awareness, Member States could consider declaring a UN Decade for the Prevention of Armed Conflict.

42. A comprehensive system must include official recognition of the role of civil society inpeace and security matters. Governments and IGOs can help to strengthen civil society capacities by providing both practical support and recognition of the legitimacy of CSOs, within a rights-based framework. The participation rights of CSOs in national, regional and international fora must be systematically integrated into prevention activities. These rights should be based on well-defined concepts and frameworks for partnering. The UN and Regional Organizations should accord permanent observer status to CSOs active in peacebuilding and conflict management and prevention; this should include CSO status with the UN General Assembly.

a) Government policies and practices should be informed by the principle that state security and human security are complementary and mutually reinforcing. Governments should strengthen their commitments to making the prevention of violent conflict a national priority. They should integrate prevention into their national security policies and operational capacities, as well as provide increased resources for domestic and international programmes and activities. They should champion the development of domestic legislation and international norms that promote prevention and human security. They must also create and exercise political will and capacity for consistent, early and effective response to emerging crises.

b) Governments and CSOs should cooperate to promote human security through coordinated action, critical dialogue and ongoing monitoring. CSOs should be involved at all stages of the development, design, and implementation of prevention policies and programs. This can be enabled through specialised institutional mechanisms as well as other formal and informal channels for engagement.

c) To engage effectively, many CSOs will need to strengthen their capacities to engage proactively with national policymaking processes. They can engage with parliamentary processes and work with parliamentarians to develop and monitor relevant legislation.

Parliaments should develop procedures to have hearings with a wide range of CSOs to elicit views and ideas on important and sensitive issues.

d) Governments and CSOs can work together to develop effective systems for civilian conflict management, while ensuring that governments live up to their responsibilities and CSOs maintain their independence. National civilian peace services can be created to enable rapid responses to requests for international civilian presence elsewhere.

e) Inter-governmental and international actors can play a key role in facilitating and creating space for constructive dialogue and productive engagement between governments and civil society representatives. Their mandates and operational practices should give priority to enabling this dialogue and, consequently, missions should develop the necessary skills and capacities to do so effectively. Each year, the Canadian government hosts a conference where they can deliberate foreign policy with Canadian civil society. This acts as a consultative mechanism for developing the government’s response to both thematic issues and specific situations.

a) In the past, governments have formed successful alliances with CSOs to advance such causes as the Security Council Resolution on Women, Peace and Security, the campaign to ban landmines, and to promote human security. Governments should form a ‘group of friends’ to promote prevention in the international system and in government policies and practices.

b) The Inter-Parliamentary Union and parliamentarian associations can undertake initiatives to focus on prevention and peacebuilding. This could be the focus for an experimental global public policy committee to discuss emerging priorities on the global agenda, as recommended by the Cardoso Panel.

45. Strengthen the capacities of the UN’s deliberative organs for leadership of prevention and peacebuilding and effective engagement with civil society.

b) The Security Council should implement the recommendations of the Cardoso Panel to strengthen the Council’s engagement with civil society. It should improve the planning and effectiveness of the Arria formula meetings by lengthening lead times and covering travel costs to increase the participation of actors from the field. UN country staff should assist in identifying civil society interlocutors. Security Council field missions should meet regularly with appropriate local civil society leaders, international NGOs and perhaps others, such as business leaders. Security Council should continue thematic seminars to discuss issues of emerging importance to the Council that include presentations by civil society and other constituencies as well as UN specialists, such as special rapporteurs. The Security Council should convene independent commissions of inquiry after Council-mandated operations.

d) UN Peacebuilding Commission should be created, as outlined by the Secretary-General, to mobilise resources and enable coherent and sustained peacebuilding through informationsharing, planning and monitoring. The Commission should have systematic measures for consulting with relevant CSOs – especially those from affected communities – to ensure that strategies are responsive to the long-term needs of the society, in fulfilment of international norms. The Commission can also proactively encourage Member States and others to request its advice and assistance at any stage, including before violence has emerged. The proposed peacebuilding support office should have a dedicated and highly qualified staff with extensive practical experience in working with conflict, including in facilitating dialogue and mediation. It should have close cooperation with the operational agencies of the UN and regional organisations. There should be direct links with the regional and in-country mechanisms for working with conflict-related issues, specified in points 46 and 47 below. It should engage proactively with CSOs and develop partnership agreements where relevant.

a) There should be a focal point for prevention and peacebuilding within the UN Country Team to channel effective information flows and be a catalyst to help coordinate appropriate responses, possibly building on the role of UNDP peace and development advisors. S/he should foster a framework for engagement with local civil society and serve as a link between governments and CSOs working on prevention and peacebuilding.

b) The Resident Coordinator / SRSG can establish advisory councils. Such bodies – comprised of women and men from different social groups and possibly representatives of government, local authorities and regional organisations – could work toward the development of joint strategies to promote social cohesion and human security and help to ensure that the overall strategy adopted by international actors is sensitive to local needs. Ideally, these councils would model multi-stakeholder dialogue-based approaches for working with tensions. In larger countries, councils could be established in different regions, especially conflict zones, to more effectively engage people outside the capital. In countries at-risk of escalating conflict, these councils should funnel early warning information, analysis and ideas, as well as strategies emerging from local processes, into national deliberations. Where relevant, such councils could serve as part of the architecture to promote implementation of the terms of peace agreements through independent monitoring and mediation, as well as providing advice on peacebuilding strategies.

c) Create opportunities for engagement for UN staff and local people, including those based in CSOs and other social leaders, to get to know each other and experience working together. Training and induction events can provide good opportunities, as well as other experiences for interaction such as seminars, receptions, and cultural events. UN local staff should reflect the full diversity of the local population. It is particularly important to promote contacts with civil society interlocutors representing the various conflict-affected elements of society.

a) Regional organisations should recognise the legitimate role of CSOs in inter-governmental structures and mechanisms for prevention and peacebuilding. Efforts are needed to institutionalize engagement, including through providing CSOs with consultative status within these structures.

b) Regional organisations should develop their normative standards connected to human rights, security, governance and development in ways that promote prevention. They should develop regional action plans for the implementation and enforcement of standards and resolutions.

c) Regional organisations should increase their capacities to engage effectively with the range of issues related to prevention and peacebuilding. They should develop their operational prevention capacities, as outlined in Section IV, possibly managed through conflict prevention and peacebuilding units. They should also establish mechanisms that interlink with international and local systems for early warning and early response.

d) Efforts should be made to develop or strengthen appropriate mechanisms to address the crossborder and regional dimension of factors that cause conflicts or that enable them to become deadly. These can take place under the auspices of a regional organisation, under the UN, or as a joint instrument, depending on the existing multilateral arrangements in the region. Where no such organisations exist, the UN can convene relevant actors. Consistent with the subsidiarity principle, the UN should fill in gaps in a complementary and additive manner. Funding streams should be available for (sub-)regional level initiatives. Priority should be given to engaging local and regional CSOs to explore mechanisms for ongoing cooperation and partnerships. Where existing regional organisations are more closed, the UN can open space for CSO involvement.

In Eastern Africa, the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) has advanced regional early warning systems through the creation of CEWARN in close collaboration with CSOs. It has played a key role mediating conflicts in Sudan and Somalia. With more resources and capacity, a transformed IGAD could become an African Union specialised agency capable of drawing from governmental and CSO resources towards early warning and peacemaking in the region.

VII. Strengthening civil society roles & capacities

a) CSOs must build more effective mechanisms – and possibly institutions – to improve communication, coordination and mutual assistance between groups with different approaches to conflict prevention. The aim should be to increase capacities and develop shared and complementary strategies with groups working in similar geographic or substantive areas for prevention, responsive initiatives, and /or peacebuilding. Networks can help to enable coalitions and resource sharing strategies.

b) Local networks can help to empower the collective of indigenous organizations to become active in the field by tempering or transforming perceptions of conflict prevention and peacebuilding as a foreign or external concern. In many regions, perceptions of the role of violence as a means to solve problems is being challenged and questioned. Providing conflict prevention practitioners with a platform to freely discuss their experiences and concerns can help to tip the balance in favour of broader application of already existing nonviolence and peaceful conflict resolution traditions.

c) Networks need to function well at a sub-regional and cross-border level to enable joint CSO efforts for preventive diplomacy and initiatives to address cross-border factors that cause and exacerbate conflict. As appropriate, they can create CSO-initiated regional conflict prevention centers to monitor potential conflict and respond in timely and innovative ways.

d) Networks should contribute to deepening partnerships and widening the network of local and regional CSOs with whom international organizations can engage. This will also allow greater integration of southern perspectives in regional and international fora.

e) Platforms of CSOs dedicated to prevention and peacebuilding should establish links with other CSOs, such as churches, business associations, unions, and universities. Active steps should be taken to cooperate with networks focused on related matters, such as human rights, development and environmental issues. Further analysis is needed of existing networks to identify ways in which they can better serve the functions they are organised to address.

f) CSOs should work with governments, regional organisations and the UN to address those restrictions to freedom of movement that impede cross-border regional and global networking and cooperation, in ways that are consistent with international norms.

a) Regional platforms for peacebuilding should develop strategies for implementing gender perspectives. The networks should include both women and men and be drawn from women's groups, civic initiatives, institutions, international organisations, and other NGOs whose work is not focused exclusively on gender awareness

b) Women’s networks and the donor community should build capacity of CSOs – especially women’s organisations – to advocate and lobby for women’s involvement in conflict prevention management and resolution process. All organisations must increase the level of knowledge and awareness of gender perspective within their own structures.

a) Young people can become powerful peace workers with encouragement and support. In consultation with youth, governments and international organisations and agencies should develop youth policies with minimum standard of ways to ensure the inclusion of youth in their activities and to address their needs. Such policies should include a focus on youth skill development for conflict prevention, management and resolution. CSOs should lobby governments and IGOs to adopt the policy and support and monitor its implementation at the community level.

b) CSOs, IGOs and governments should provide support to enable national, regional and global networking among youth to share experiences and develop innovative initiatives for responding to conflict. Strengthen existing networks of youth organisations in order to address issues affecting the youth, as well as to co-ordinate efforts aimed at building the capacity of youth structures to contribute to the prevention of violent conflict.

a) Peace and conflict-prevention oriented CSOs should work with faith-based organizations to facilitate the formation of inter-faith councils that will include women and youth.

b) Drawing on the respect that religious communities often enjoy in all societies and nations all over the world, networks of inter-faith councils should organize joint activities to promote mutual understanding, peaceful coexistence and – where needed - peacebuilding.

c) Regional inter-faith councils should collaborate with national governments, regional organisations and the UN to influence policies at the national, regional and international levels and to prevent faith related violence.

d) Increase inter-faith understanding by providing courses and other educational processes for young people and other groups about their own and others religious tradition.

e) Undertake strategic programs of empirical research, discussion and education into the political and social role of religious communities, the distribution of power, their role in the armed conflicts, and their general influence on society. Bring together experts and leaders of religious communities, peace-oriented CSOs, and government officials to discuss research results and their own experiences in order to develop concrete proposals for action.

a) Specialist CSOs can work with traditional leaders to enhance their capacity in conflict prevention and peacebuilding at community, national and regional levels. In addition they can help to facilitate the establishment of council of traditional leaders. Members of such councils can serve as eminent persons in mediating in conflicts.

b) Furthermore, there is a need to better understand and learn from the experiences of indigenous knowledge systems for strengthening community organization and peacebuilding.