Better Evidence Resource Library

Permanent URI for this collection

https://hdl.handle.net/1920/11990

The Better Evidence Project’s Resource Library in MARS provides access to a variety of practitioner and academic resources to improve the evidence available to donors, policy makers, practitioners, and scholars in the peacebuilding community. For more information on the Better Evidence Project and additional resources, please visit https://bep.carterschool.gmu.edu.

Browse

Browsing Better Evidence Resource Library by Subject "Colombia"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A Summary of Lessons Learned: Studies and Evaluations
    (United Nations Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, 2020) United Nations
    The United Nations Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, in order to strengthen its accountability and organizational learning, commissions several evaluative exercises—lessons learned studies and evaluations—every year. This report provides key findings, lessons learned, and recommendations of evaluative exercises commissioned by the Department in 2020. These include an evaluation around the drawdown, reconfiguration and withdrawal of a number of peacekeeping operations and Special Political Missions (SPMs) and how they affected the presence and work of the wider UN. The report also focused on the UN mediation of the Equatorial Guinea-Gabon boundary dispute between 2008 and 2016, which relates to their overlapping claims of sovereignty over three islands, and the delimitation of their maritime and land boundaries. In addition there were evaluations of the increased support by the Mediation Support Unit (MSU) for local mediation initiatives and an analysis of UN engagement with the Maldives in support of its nascent democratic gains to build confidence between political actors and to foster the conditions for meaningful political dialogue and the discussion of delicate religious and societal issues. Finally, the report reviews UN efforts to advance the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda during the peace negotiations (2012- 2016) and then through the establishment of two consecutive special political missions (SPMs) in Colombia to verify specific provisions of the Agreement. In its efforts to implement the WPS agenda in Colombia, the UN worked in close cooperation with the authorities and former guerrillas, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC-EP), as well as with civil society and international stakeholders.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Local engagement with armed groups in the midst of violence
    (Conciliation Resources, 2015) Haspeslagh, Sophia (ed.); Yousuf, Zahbia (ed.)
    This report moves beyond the question of whether or not to engage in dialogue with an armed group and explores the spaces in which armed groups operate and their relationships with the people who live there. While local populations are not just passive actors in conflict zones, simply coerced by armed actors, it is equally true that armed groups do not merely exploit or abuse communities in areas in which they operate. Three in-depth case studies from Colombia, northern Uganda and Syria, as well as a shorter analysis from Northern Ireland, illustrate how communities have tried to influence the behavior of armed groups away from violence, and the factors that have affected their interactions – most of which took place in advance of more formal negotiations and often in situations of intense violence and embedded conflict. These local “spaces in between” fighting and talking shed light on the possibilities for more upstream engagement with armed groups and the variety of peace efforts involved in shaping their decisions. The case studies illustrate that reaching out to armed groups does not have to legitimate their tactics or even ambitions. They also show how active community engagement with armed groups can make an important contribution to local human security and peacebuilding. The experiences documented confirm that local peace actors face huge security risks – unprotected by diplomatic immunity or the security of the state. Armed groups often have a blatant disregard for civilian security, or worse, purposefully target populations. Local populations also face security threats from the state, which often views communities close to armed groups as complicit. Active contact by a community with an armed group risks exacerbating perceptions of association.