Zones of Peace

Hancock, Landon E.

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-77954-2_177

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They also note how mutual accountability mechanisms empowered local residents not only to hold peacebuilding providers accountable for their actions, but to develop social networks and skills that enabled them to build resilient communities and address other social problems (Arandel et al 2015). Social capital is also noted as an important product, or byproduct, of local peacebuilding and violence prevention efforts in local zones of peace in places as far flung as Colombia, the Philippines, El Salvador, and Northern Ireland, where it can be seen as an outcome of deliberative processes and public participation that result in increased local agency (Hancock 2007, 2018).…”

Section: Conceptual Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Zones of Peace, frequently operating separately from international peacebuilding structures, often have the most complete control over objectives and programmatic goals. This includes everything from the Constituent Assembly of Mogotes requiring candidates for Community Manager to receive complete approval for their peacebuilding plans from community members (Hancock 2018) to the insistence of total control over the use of incoming funds by peace communities in El Salvador and Colombia's San Jose de Apartadó (Hancock 2007; Burnyeat 2017). More mixed models, where locals have a large, but not total, say over the development of peacebuilding goals are to be found in the UN‐funded projects in Somalia— Midnimo (unity) I and II—which used large Community Action Groups to develop action plans and set goals for the peacebuilding projects, and EPI's indicator development strategy (described above), which is premised upon developing projects based upon community‐derived needs and goals (United Nations 2017).…”

Section: Conclusion: Cbmande – Possibilities and Cautionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Peacebuilding Accountability: The United Nations Peacebuilding Fund and Community‐Based Monitoring and Evaluation

Hancock

2023

Negotiation Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International peacebuilding as a discourse and practice has expanded rapidly in the nearly three decades since the publication of Boutros Boutros‐Ghali's Agenda for Peace. Alongside the growth of peacebuilding efforts has come the realization that many peacebuilding projects conceived of and sponsored by the international community have failed to meet their own objectives or, more importantly, have failed to be embraced fully by those whom they were supposed to help: the individuals and communities attempting to rebuild their lives in post‐conflict countries. One area that has been under‐examined and—in particular—under‐theorized is the role and impact of funder accountability mechanisms on local ownership, community agency, and peacebuilding success. However, in the development field some work has been done to examine accountability models and to try to develop new ones. As part of a project funded by the Council on Foreign Relations, the author served as a local peacebuilding advisor to the United Nations Peacebuilding Fund's monitoring and evaluation team, where he led an effort to develop a more collaborative evaluation method designed to close accountability loops by including a broader range of actors than that normally considered by current evaluation methodologies. This article offers a scoping analysis of the strengths and weaknesses inherent in the interactions between large international donor agencies and local peacebuilding efforts. It also presents a preview of one agency's determined efforts to bridge those gaps and implement programs and processes designed to promote local agency while supporting transparent accountability.

show abstract

Section: Conceptual Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%