Navigating Peace Fragmentation: Recommendations to the new UK government

Authors: Tim Epple, Andrew Lang, Laura Wise, Kathryn Nash, Niamh Henry, Juline Beaujouan, Deval Desai

The nature of conflict and peace processes has changed substantially since the 1990s. PeaceRep studies this changing landscape and generates new ideas and tools to help peacemakers prevent and resolve conflict.

PeaceRep recently shared with the incoming government of the United Kingdom a set of key findings, challenges and recommendations to inform the UK’s role as a conflict resolution actor. Our findings explore the implications of the changing conflict and peacemaking context, and how the UK might respond. The key findings draw on PeaceRep’s wide research into peace and transition processes and its PeaceTech work. The findings are not exhaustive of all of PeaceRep’s conceptual and empirical work, but are the result of an attempt to deduce some key insights and lessons from PeaceRep’s growing body of evidence for contemporary peacemaking.

Changing Context: Fragmentation and Multimediation

PeaceRep research shows that a key feature of many of today’s conflicts and peace processes is fragmentation. Contemporary conflict systems are often characterised by fragmentation of conflict actors into small groups, and a mesh of local, national, transnational and geopolitical conflicts (Bell and Wise, 2023; Bell, 2024a). Peace and transition processes also show signs of fragmentation. Mediation efforts are increasingly ad-hoc and piecemeal, in what Christine Bell defines as ‘multimediation’, or the use of multiple overlapping mediation processes in a complex conflict system (Bell, 2024a). Our PA-X Local database also shows an increasing number of local peace processes ‘beneath’ national-level processes, which hold both opportunities and risks for wider peacemaking (Bell and Wise, 2023).

Geopolitical shifts also mean that more states and different international actors are now intervening in conflicts as professed third-party mediators. PeaceRep’s data shows clear trends in the proliferation and diversification of mediators over time. The data points to a decreasing engagement of some Western countries and international organisations, and increasing engagement by regional organisations and ‘non-Western’ countries such as Kenya, Qatar and Turkey (see the Global Transitions series; Badanjak, 2023; Coe and Nash, 2023). Often these actors have different conceptions of mediation and of the peace it aims to achieve (on Turkey, for example, see Sofos, 2023 and Beaujouan, 2024).

As a result of both conflict and peace process fragmentation, conflict resolution actors find it increasingly difficult to ‘mount’ holistic peacemaking efforts. The models of the 1990s and early 2000s which aimed to achieve a national peace accord through a single mediation process appear increasingly inadequate in tackling some of today’s most fragmented conflicts.

Read more about fragmentation and multimediation in our full set of key findings.

Challenges of the Changing Context

The changing nature of peace and transition processes raises a series of challenges and questions for peacemakers.

A key question is how to deal with fragmentation, and whether to work with or against its grain. The international community needs to find ways of engaging armed actors in ways that (i) end conflict and create future government that is acceptable to civilians, and (ii) prevent conflict re-occurrence. There is a need for innovation in how to bring together state and non-state actors in support of peace processes, including in ‘minilateral’ formats such as ‘contact groups’ or ‘troikas’. PeaceRep’s in-country research shows how fragmentation and multimediation play out in practice, including in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Iraq, Myanmar, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria and Ukraine. This work explores potential pathways for conflict resolution and wider inclusion in peace and transition processes.

Fragmentation and the multiplication of mediation actors also pose challenges to peace process inclusion and the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda – key areas of PeaceRep’s work. Today’s peace processes require women’s rights advocates to engage with and understand emergent third parties’ approaches to WPS, to identify potential entry points for gender interventions (Wise, forthcoming 2024). Only 21 percent of peace agreements signed since 1990 contain explicit references to women, girls, gender or sexual violence – despite efforts by multiple stakeholders to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1325 and integrate gender perspectives across peace processes (PA-X Gender). Many of the peace agreement references are single line and tokenistic, and only a few peace processes include a more holistic gender perspective throughout (Wise and Knäussel, 2023). There is a clear need for more robust measures to ensure gender perspectives in peace processes.

Another key challenge is the need for more and better data and research to drive evidence-based policy. Proliferating mediation initiatives are increasingly hard to ‘hold in view’. Mediators often expend tremendous resources on ‘conflict analysis’ but expend less concerted effort on ‘dialogue process’ analysis. PeaceRep combines in-country research with data from PA-X, a database with over 2,000 peace agreements signed since 1990, to generate this kind of evidence. For example, PeaceRep makes dialogues and agreements more visible in what are otherwise highly contested contexts in which no compromise seems possible (Wittke, Bell, and Henry, 2024).

A related challenge is how to harness the power of ‘PeaceTech’ and Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques, and how to do so responsibly. The goal of developing PeaceTech is to support peacebuilding practices through digital innovation (Bell, 2024b). PeaceRep has developed the PA-X Tracker, a cutting-edge tool providing curated evidence to inform decision-making and research into peace and transition processes. PeaceRep leverages AI techniques, particularly machine learning and natural language processing (Henry, 2024; Gardner, 2023), to develop new datasets and provide insights through ‘peace analytics’.

Recommendations to the UK Government

Given these challenges, PeaceRep recommends the UK government and wider civil society and peacemaking actors to focus on the following:

1. Leverage the UK’s strength in convening and brokering actors in fragmented peace processes. Drawing on its ‘thought leadership’, deep expertise, and influence as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the UK can build new peacemaking partnerships and find new ways of coordinating ‘the mediators’. Where coordination is not feasible, the UK could ‘mediate between the mediators’ who often intervene with different goals for mediation. When building new conflict resolution efforts, be guided by the UK’s specific historic and moral responsibilities and follow ‘do no harm’ principles.

2. Manage expectations and embrace the political and messy nature of peace processes. Peace and transition processes are non-linear and messy (see PeaceRep’s ‘messy timeline’ tool). External actors need to be aware of their limited influence, particularly in fragmented contexts, and manage their own and stakeholders’ expectations of what is achievable. Avoid seeking technical solutions to deeply political conflicts. Take the calculated political risks required to support peacemaking.

3. Ensure that all conflict resolution initiatives centre the views and experiences of marginalised constituencies, and take a flexible approach to supporting women’s full, equal, meaningful and safe participation in peace negotiations, particularly at early stages. WPS interventions need to adapt to the new mediation landscape, which requires critical reflection and alternative approaches (such as co-mediation).

4. Commit to long-term, adaptive, and local support. Make long-term commitments to sustainable diplomatic support and conflict resolution funding that can build trust with civil society actors, and re-establish the UK as a reliable partner. Support creative approaches to preventative diplomacy and community peacebuilding.

5. Map mediation initiatives and further link humanitarian, development and peace (HDP) data and political analysis. It is critical to develop new ways of mapping and sharing information about mediation initiatives. Understand what parts of a conflict system they address, what their goals are, and what conflicts remain unaddressed and could benefit from some form of process. Ensure interoperability of this data with other conflict and HDP data to evidence-based and holistic policymaking.

6. Use the UK’s data and technology ambition to drive PeaceTech data and AI innovation, as demonstrated by PeaceRep and others. Foster Global North-South PeaceTech collaboration, bringing together public and private technology innovators and actors from across the HDP nexus.

7. Teach and train the new generation of UK diplomats and peacemakers. The approaches and tools of the 1990s and 2000s are no longer fit for purpose. Equip diplomats and those working across the HDP nexus with cutting-edge subject matter expertise and tools relevant to the new context.

Read more about fragmentation and multimediation in our full set of key findings.

Explore PeaceRep’s full range of key findings.