On 27 February 2015, the Geneva Peacebuilding Platform launched the White Paper on Peacebuilding at the Maison de la Paix. This White Paper has the aim to present a range of voices and perspectives about the challenges, opportunities and future of peacebuilding practice. It is the result of a collaboration between peacebuilding professionals from all regions and various sectors. Here some complementary information by Dr. Achim Wennmann, Executive Coordinator of the Geneva Peacebuilding Platform and Researcher at the Graduate Institute’s Centre on Conflict, Development and Peacebuilding (CCDP).


The White Paper on Peacebuilding occurs at a moment of several major agenda-setting processes, including the 10-year review of the UN Peacebuilding Architecture and the High-Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations. How does it contribute to these processes?

The White Paper on Peacebuilding makes two concrete contributions to these processes. Firstly, it brings a new evidence base about the current state of the peacebuilding field. Beyond the White Paper itself, the research process involved 20 background papers on regional and thematic perspectives and outreach to over 100 peacebuilding practitioners through interviews and consultations. Secondly, it will trigger discussion. Inspired by the original notion of a “white paper” in government circles, the White Paper is not a consensus document and does not seek to be conclusive. It aims to stimulate a discussion about how countries and societies themselves can move towards sustainable peace and about the assistance the UN and other international and local actors can bring to such processes. The 10-year review and the Peace Operations Panel are a good moment to have this discussion.

Peacebuilding seems to be a complex undertaking. How did you go about untangling this complexity? And is there any specific “Geneva contribution” in the White Paper?

Peacebuilding can be difficult to understand from outside and you need to have at least a little bit your fingers in the pie to see the “who”, “what” and “how” in peacebuilding. So what the Platform and its partners did for the White Paper is to speak to those professionals that have their fingers in the pie and go into listening mode for a year to absorb what they have to say about the state of the profession. We listened to peacebuilding practitioners from all regions that we identified through respective partner networks. We then collaboratively evaluated what we heard. This approach was based on a set of underlying aims that we thought are important to make the White Paper relevant. The first aim was to add value to ongoing discussions by generating substance, analysis or understanding on peacebuilding at the cross-section of institutions, sectors, and disciplines. Adding value also meant locating discussions outside of official meetings on positions, and above institutional and sectoral silos and “turf wars”. What is more, the White Paper prioritised listening to the voices of local peacebuilders. These are the professionals most talked about, but least often heard, so the White Paper reached out to them to make their voices heard. If there is a Geneva contribution in the White Paper it is perhaps this cross-sectoral, globally connected, and evidenced-based approach that resonates with this city’s convening power, research institutions and action networks.

What are the major points of the White Paper on Peacebuilding?

The White Paper produces a spectrum of perspectives from peacebuilding practitioners. For instance, a recurring view was that peacebuilding directed by external interveners is no longer a politically and practically viable approach. In many regions there is an increasing self-confidence amongst state and societal actors that has translated into their willingness to challenge often paternalistic approaches of outsiders attempting to control peacebuilding dynamics on the ground. Many peacebuilding professionals also observe a reduction of operational space to build peace. From stronger anti-terror legislation, through pressures by state elites, to normative frameworks – there is a sense that building peace has become more constrained. Looking forward, many peacebuilders emphasise the need to create stronger networks between local change-makers who are building peace on a daily basis – and sometimes at tremendous personal risk. They also highlight the need to find new funding models for peacebuilding because the model of funding peacebuilding through external donors will become increasingly unsustainable.

Can you give a concrete example of how the White Paper could be used, for instance, in Ukraine, Syria, Myanmar, or Colombia?

As a new evidence base about key trends in the peacebuilding field, the White Paper can inform national or local discussions about building peace in the countries you mentioned, but also in many others. It can also inform discussions about the role of the UN and other international and local actors in supporting such processes. A white paper approach can be used to filter and map the diversity of views on peacebuilding processes and to broaden discussion about how societies themselves can achieve a more sustainable peace. Especially useful, I think, is the way in which the White Paper did not work with preconceived definitions of peacebuilding, but instead sought to reflect the conceptual understandings and substantive priorities of our interlocutors. The White Paper could thus be a good starting point for broadening a conversation about peace, and particularly on the avenues to get there in a specific context. At the end of this one-year white paper process, I am curious about what a white paper on peacebuilding in Ukraine, Syria, Myanmar or Colombia would look like. Surely, they would all be different, but it would be good to see how the spectrum of perspectives on peacebuilding would play out in each context.


The Geneva Peacebuilding Platform is a joint project of four institutions: The Graduate Institute’s CCDP; the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP); Interpeace; and the Quaker United Nations Office, Geneva (QUNO).