Refocusing GPPAC Efforts in Early Warning and Early Response

Refocusing GPPAC Efforts in Early Warning and Early Response

Peter Woodrow, Chair of EWER Task Force Core Group

Introduction

Since the 2005 Conference in New York and the subsequent identification of GPPAC’s programme, Early Warning and Early Response has been a major focus for efforts in several regions. The overall objective[1] for the work has been articulated as:

Early Warning and Early Response: Mobilising civil society early response actions to prevent violent conflict

Goal: The Early Warning and Early Response programme seeks to enhance the capacity and professionalism of civil society organisations to engage in early warning and especially early response efforts, and to advance interaction with governments, regional intergovernmental organisations and UN agencies.

The EWER Task Force held a planning meeting at the conclusion of four days of meetings, during which we were able to examine in detail, both past experiences of intervention to prevent violence and three exercises aimed at assessing the current conflict realities in specific areas and prospects for forward action, under the Mobilising Early Response Project (MERP). During the TF planning meeting, the group reached a clear consensus to move, as much as possible, towards an emphasis on early response. While previous documents, including the goal statement above, also take that approach, in practice EWER efforts have been more diffuse. Considerable effort has been focused on learning from the impressive example of civil society and government cooperation in EWER in West Africa—an experience that may not be replicable in other regions. So far, response actions have been few. Task Force members were united in moving towards preventive action.

Rationale for a Focus on Prevention Action

While the GPPAC rhetoric has supported an emphasis on early reponse, we have only recently found an approach that permits GPPAC regions to move assertively in that direction. The MER Project has proven a useful exercise that has enabled three GPPAC regions to conduct concrete assessments of particular situations and begin the process of determining action plans. In two of the three cases (Kenya and Moldova/Transdneistria), the regional groups were able to outline specific actions needed to prevent future violence. In the case of Central America (covering Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala), the group gathered considerable information, and is planning additional analysis and action planning in the coming months.

From a personal perspective (i.e., not yet explicitly supported by other Task Force members, though discussed with some of them), I draw the following conclusions, based on the MERP experience, observing the work of the TF in the past several years, and other experiences:

While the West Africa (WANEP/ECOWARN) model is extraordinary, most GPPAC regions are not in a position to replicate it, and some regions have been a bit intimidated by the prospect of trying;
Donors have grown tired of supporting early warning systems, and many have concluded that little action results from the considerable human and technical infrastucture required (example: defunding of FAST);
Most civil society organizations and networks are better suited to longer term efforts to address structural conflict, rather than intervene in urgent crises;
Many (most? all?) GPPAC regions already know which countries or sub-national regions are at risk for violent conflict, without any sophisticated early warning systems—anyone who is attuned to issues of conflict within the regions can develop a priority list of vulnerable areas;
The MERP experiment shows that GPPAC regions already have the capability of performing professional assessments regarding countries/areas at risk, although some regions have also acknowledged the need for strengthening specific skills (e.g., conflict analysis); and
The intermediate steps of conflict assessment and action planning are useful (though not sufficient) for moving towards preventive action.

The overall approach outlined below is informed by these observations.

Outline of an Approach to Preventive Action

Much of what is outlined here was suggested in the Task Force planning session in Abidjan, though organized a bit differently (and, without the notes, I am probably forgetting something!).

Task Force Name: Rename the Task Force to become the Preventive Action Task Force.

Flexible Outline for Preventive Action, to be implemented (eventually) in all GPPAC regions:

Work, as a region, to identify those countries, sub-regions of countries or cross-border situations that threaten to deteriorate into armed political conflict in three to five years time.[2]
Determine priority areas/situations to address (probably no more than one or two per year in each region).
Organize a team to conduct a Conflict Assessment of the areas at risk, using common Terms of Reference, that can be adapted as needed.
Develop a draft Action Plan for all actors, based on the Conflict Assessment and initial discussions with all stakeholders/actors.
Engage peacebuilding organizations, other civil-society partners, and, as possible, governments and international organizations in a process for refining the Action Plan and building as broad a consensus as possible regarding what can/should be done to prevent violence.
Mobilize GPPAC members and others to implement the civil society portions of the Action Plan.
Undertake concerted advocacy efforts to promote action by governments, regional organizations and international bodies to implement their portions of the Action Plan.
Initiate an ongoing process for monitoring the situation of concern, providing ongoing feedback to the GPPAC region, GPPAC country members and other concerned bodies.
Conduct careful evaluations, in each case, regarding the effectiveness of the overall effort, from initial identification of the problem, through assessment, action and advocacy.

Implications for Other Areas of GPPAC Work

During the Task Force planning session in Abidjan, we also noted that this approach has implications for other areas of GPPAC work—which have been, until now somewhat separate (even isolated) programmatic efforts. I think I speak for the Task Force in saying that we would advocate for a more unified and coherent approach for the next planning period. The following are my thoughts on this subject—not yet discussed in detail with the TF, although the general point was accepted.

Advocacy: If we adopt the approach above, there will be considerable demand for support from the global network in the form of lobbying with international organizations regarding Action Plans developed at the regional level. Currently advocacy has been focused primarily on the Peacebuilding Commssion—which should probably continue. However, additional advocacy in relation to specific areas of concern to GPPAC regions and based on regionally-developed Action Plans would be needed, depending on the specific requirements for international action.

Awareness Raising: This approach might also suggest new/different approaches to awareness raising, focusing on the need for action regarding specific areas of concern, and building public support for the Action Plans, rather than fairly abstract support for conflict prevention. A fair amount of this effort might be in the global North—in support of government action and/or funding for prevention.

Knowledge Generation: The EWER Task Force has funded two case studies (and a third is underway) on its own. GPPAC should consider whether, in the next planning period, further knowledge generation efforts could be concentrated on ongoing monitoring and evaluation of Preventive Action efforts.

Network Building: At least some members of the EWER Task Force are convinced that GPPAC will die away, if we are not able to move firmly into actual action in the near future. If GPPAC regions succeed in performing credible Assessments, producing widely-accepted Action Plans, and precipitating Preventive Action by their members and by other actors, this will, in itself, breathe life into the networks. In order to prosper, networks need obvious reasons for existing and for the considerable energy they require to be sustained. The proposed approach to Preventive Action may provide a tangible reason for surviving and thriving.

Appendix: Excerpt from 2008 Annual Workplan

Early Warning and Early Response: Mobilising civil society early response actions to prevent violent conflict

Outcome Challenge 1: The EWER subprogram intends to see GPPAC Network Members that undertake adequate early warning and response activities within their capacity and strive to increase their human, methodological and material capacity. They take a lead in initiating and participating in early warning and early response actions regarding cross-border and (sub)regional conflicts. GPPAC Network Members mobilize appropriate actors with response capacity at local, national, regional and international levels, as relevant. They engage on a regular basis with governments, regional and international organisations to optimise these organisations’ collaboration with GPPAC Network Members on early warning and early response. They support each other and promote civil society-based EWER by sharing good practices, innovative approaches and lessons learned.

Strategy 1: Collect, adapt, translate and disseminate information on EWER methodology, experiences and good practice, innovative approaches, and lessons learned

Strategy 2: Identify entry-points for EWER at local, national, regional and international organisations

Strategy 3: Conduct rapid response actions, discuss methods and experiences and start developing an overall framework for early response.

Strategy 4: Exchange experience and provide consultancy to and among Network Members

Strategy 5: Promote civil society-based EWER, and invest in communication with governments, regional and international organisations that are interested in the EWER work of Network Members

Strategy 6: Organise gatherings to learn and exchange ideas on EWER, involving CSOs and representatives of government, regional and international organisations

Strategy 7: Encourage /advocate/lobby the engagement of governments, regional and international organisations in response actions in concrete emerging conflict situations

[1] Current goals and strategies attached as an appendix to this document.

[2] Regions could also identify more urgent situations of impending violence, but the action by the region would be different. In fact, GPPAC may need to develop a bifurcated strategy over time; one for long term structural prevention, the other for crisis intervention. It is my firm conviction that most GPPAC regions are currently better equiped to address the longer term issues rather than crises, and we should build on that strength.