Towards a Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding: Getting Their Act Together

The report identifies a significant gap between high-level policy and project-level implementation in peacebuilding efforts by the U4 governments. It recommends shifting impact assessment from individual projects to a strategic level and adopting formal frameworks for both general and case-specific intervention strategies.

• A major 'strategic deficit' exists in the peacebuilding efforts of the U4 governments, characterized by a disconnection between policy articulation and practical implementation. Over 55 per cent of surveyed projects showed no link to a broader country strategy.
• The report argues that assessing the impact of individual peacebuilding projects is currently unviable due to the complexity of conflict dynamics and the lack of a reliable science for doing so. It recommends that project evaluations focus on outputs and best practices, while impact assessment is shifted to the strategic level.
• Peacebuilding is conceptualized as a 'palette' of inter-dependent activities across four main headings: providing security, establishing socio-economic foundations, establishing a political framework, and generating reconciliation and justice.
• The U4 governments exhibit different priorities in their peacebuilding portfolios: Germany focuses on socio-economic assistance and political frameworks; the Netherlands emphasizes the political dimension; Norway leans toward socio-economic foundations; and the UK prioritizes security and reconciliation.
• The report warns that 'local ownership' in conflict contexts is a complex concept that can unintentionally lead to partnering with the most powerful or opportunistic sectors of society, including conflict parties.
• There is a significant problem with 'absorptive capacity' in post-conflict countries, where an excessive influx of aid can lead to corruption, price inflation, and a 'wages problem' that drains educated locals from the state and private sector into international NGO roles.
• The report proposes the adoption of two distinct strategic frameworks: a general peacebuilding strategy to set principles and criteria for donor governments, and case-specific intervention strategies that are treated as iterative processes rather than static documents.
• Certain types of projects, specifically Humanitarian Mine Action (HMA), Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR), and socio-economic projects, are often treated as 'strategy resistant,' as if their value is self-evident and requires no strategic justification.

APA

Peace Research Institute Oslo (2004). Towards a Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding: Getting Their Act Together. https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/4bd9d03b-4dba-47ce-af19-b4f62bfa0f58/210673-rapp104.pdf?inline=true

Chicago

Peace Research Institute Oslo. Towards a Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding: Getting Their Act Together. 2004. https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/4bd9d03b-4dba-47ce-af19-b4f62bfa0f58/210673-rapp104.pdf?inline=true.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Peace Research Institute Oslo |title=Towards a Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding: Getting Their Act Together |date=April 2004 |url=https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/4bd9d03b-4dba-47ce-af19-b4f62bfa0f58/210673-rapp104.pdf?inline=true |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{peaceresearchinstituteoslo2004towards, author = {{Peace Research Institute Oslo}}, title = {{Towards a Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding: Getting Their Act Together}}, institution = {Peace Research Institute Oslo}, year = {2004}, month = apr, url = {https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/4bd9d03b-4dba-47ce-af19-b4f62bfa0f58/210673-rapp104.pdf?inline=true}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }