Attachments
Introduction
After focusing on pastoralist conflicts in three crossborder areas for ten years, the Conflict Early Warning and Response Network (CEWARN) adopted an ambitious new Strategy Framework in 2012.
The strategy transformed CEWARN into a system to detect and respond timeously to the potential escalation of violent conflicts that may be triggered by economic, environmental, governance, security and social matters in all member states of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD).
Besides expanding the thematic and geographical range, the strategy enhanced CEWARN’s partnership with civil society, which was initiated by the pioneering CEWARN Protocol in 2002. This article reviews the implementation of CEWARN’s partnerships with civil society organisations (CSOs) for data collection, analysis and response under the current Strategy Framework. It identifies outstanding challenges and lessons for (inter)governmental conflict early-warning and response systems (CEWRS).
The experiences of CEWARN and other (inter)-governmental early-warning (and response) systems show that the participation of CSOs, including local community-based organisations, expert nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) and research institutions, can prove beneficial at all stages of the early-warning and response process, including data collection, analysis, warning and the implementation of responsive action. Civil society reporters may collect data on local-level dynamics that cannot be captured through media monitoring, highlight human security concerns, and assist in the verification and evaluation of incident reports.3 Research institutions may enrich analyses by adding alternative perspectives to those of (inter)-governmental officials and proposing complementary responses.4 In locallevel responses, community leaders and CSOs may warn local stakeholders, undertake rapid preventive interventions, and facilitate dialogue among community members.5 In high-level crisis responses, specialist conflict resolution NGOs may provide technical support to mediators. In long-term preventive measures, non-governmental experts may assist in policy development to tackle countries’ structural vulnerabilities.6 Participation is hoped to augment the legitimacy and acceptance of conflict interventions of intergovernmental organisations (IGOs).7 To reap these benefits, governments and CSOs must navigate organisational, technical and political challenges.
Besides IGAD, the African Union (AU) and six Regional Economic Communities (RECs) have established early-warning (and response) systems or relevant capabilities. These systems differ in their design and priorities. However, several utilise technology that was created for the CEWARN Reporter, feature national centres analogous to CEWARN, and work with CSOs for data collection, analyses and responses. CEWARN’s 20 years of experience in partnering with civil society, therefore, holds lessons for CEWRS that grapple with similar challenges.
This article reviews the implementation of CEWARN’s civil society partnerships under the Strategy Framework to identify challenges and draw lessons for (inter)governmental CEWRS and CSOs.
To this end, it examines how CSOs contributed to the collection of early-warning data, analyses, and responses since the adoption of the Strategy Framework. The study is based on 20 key information interviews with IGAD and CSO representatives.
The study shows that the Strategy Framework enables civil society participation at all stages of the warning-response process, but the modalities of its implementation bear technical, operational and political challenges that require continuous experimentation.
The findings show that:
• Expanding the net of community monitors who reported local-level incidents in the original crossborder clusters across all IGAD countries was unfeasible. Therefore, CEWARN built networks of NGO reporters, whose primary role is to verify and evaluate data that is collected through media monitoring.
• The integration of 45 National Research Institutes (NRI) with sectoral specialisations in seven nations enhanced CEWARN’s analytical capacity. But producing periodic countrywide sectoral analyses remains challenging for scarcely resourced institutes. Crucially, the sensitivity of sharing security-related information complicates research partnerships.
• The multi-agency model of CEWARN’s Conflict Early Warning and Response Units (CEWERU), in principle, ensures the coordination of government and CSOs in planning and implementing preventive action. The model, however, hinges on the full operationalisation of CEWERU Committees by states.
• Consolidating a funding model for NGOs and NRIs to mobilise third-party funding to contribute to CEWARN is the crux to sustaining the envisaged partnerships.
• Continuously building confidence between government and civil society, and maintaining sufficient civic space for CSOs to undertake early warning and response activities are essential to implement the Strategy Framework and envisaged partnerships.