Peace, as we Understand it: How Organisations Define and Pursue It - Survey Results
bicc — Bonn International Centre for Conflict Studies
Rodrigo Bolaños Suárez
April 2026
About
Overview
This report presents the findings and analysis of the survey “Peace, as we Understand it: How Organisations Define and Pursue It”, conducted under the framework of the BMZ-funded project “Shifting Power: How can HDP Nexus Actors Work Towards Locally Led Peace?” (2025-2027) at the Bonn International Centre for Conflict Studies (bicc).
The survey gathered responses from 83 organisations across Mali, South Sudan, and Syria spanning humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding mandates. Results demonstrate that organisational mandates and the degree of community embeddedness shape peace understandings and activity priorities at least as much as conflict context. They further suggest that a shared vocabulary of peace does not necessarily produce shared goals or theories of change on how to achieve it. These differences carry direct consequences for HDP Nexus collaboration and the meaningful inclusion of local actors in defining, not merely delivering, peacebuilding outcomes.
Acknowledgdements
The author would like to thank all the organisations in Mali, South Sudan, and Syria who generously gave their time to participate in the survey.
The author is also grateful to project team members Birgit Kemmerling, Marie Müller-Koné, Boubacar Haidara, Carina Yildrim-Schlüsing and Madita Joußen for their valuable insights, feedback, and comments throughout the entire process. Additionally, the author thanks Lamis Saleh, Max Mutschler, Rebecca Navarro, Esther Meininghaus and other colleagues for their constructive feedback on specific sections during internal colloquiums. The author is grateful to Heike Webb for her meticulous copy-editing of the manuscript.
The author also extends gratitude to the translators and to those who prepared the commissioned lists of organisations for their valuable contributions to this work.
AI usage statement
The author acknowledges the use of various AI services —ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Claude— throughout the entire process, including survey design, coding in R, result analysis, and the writing of texts and conclusions. All output, however, was supervised, cross-checked, modified and verified by the author to guarantee accuracy. The author remains wholly responsible for this work. No sensitive data was shared with any AI service-provider during this process.
Open Science statement
In accordance with open science principles, the anonymised dataset used in this study is publicly available. All information that could potentially identify respondents has been removed to protect confidentiality. The coding scripts and analytical code applied in the data processing and analysis are also available for download, allowing transparency and replicability of the study’s findings.
How to cite
If you use this work, please cite as follows:
Bolaños Suárez, R. (2026). Peace, as We Understand It: How Organisations Define and Pursue It. Survey Results. Bonn International Centre for Conflict Studies (bicc).https://doi.org/10.60638/5209-ah48
When referring to the survey dataset or analytical code, cite as follows:
Bolaños Suárez, R. (2026). Peace, as We Understand It: How Organisations Define and Pursue It. Survey Dataset and Analytical Code. Bonn International Centre for Conflict Studies (bicc).https://doi.org/10.60638/pz0r-4p87
Synopsis
Peace sits at the heart of the HDP Nexus. Nonetheless, for the organisations working within the peace sector its meaning is neither clear nor universal, and it is even less clear how to achieve it. The actors working across the nexus spectrum have different mandates, rationales, and constraints, which fuel these ambiguities and hinder the potential of inter-organisational collaboration - as our former project (How can the HDP Nexus Succeed?) concluded as one of its key findings (Müller-Koné et al., 2024). Moreover, a lack of integration of the local communities’ concepts of peace in the design and implementation of activities potentially leads to ineffective interventions or even to the exacerbation of existing conflicts, as the study conclusions also point out (Yildirim-Schlüsing et al., 2025).
The evidence of the previous project suggested that this definitional fragmentation extended beyond mandates and could also manifest itself between the actor types involved in the Nexus, from international non-governmental organisations to those locally embedded in the communities. Yet, these differences in peace understandings had not been empirically tested beyond international peacebuilding actors — leaving the perspectives of community-embedded organisations in crises regions largely unmapped. The survey “Peace, as we Understand it: How Organisations Define and Pursue It” aimed precisely to fill that gap — and in doing so, at the time of writing, offers one of the few empirical accounts of how local and nationally-based organisations across three conflict contexts define peace and act upon it.
Whether organisations working toward peace share a common understanding of what peace means is not merely an epistemological question — it carries direct operational and political consequences. A foundational assumption in the localisation literature is that local organisations are better positioned to grasp community needs, due to their embeddedness in the societies, their command of local languages, and their familiarity with the social fabric — a series of claims international actors cannot usually make (Ödén & Wohlgemuth, 2017). If we allow this assumption to hold, even provisionally and with exceptions, then the divergences between local and international actors in how they conceptualise and act upon peace would not be merely a coordination and efficiency issue, but, possibly, also one of representational legitimacy. In other words, whether the peace being built represents and is accepted by those who must live with its outcomes (Richmond & Mac Ginty, 2020; International Alert, 2024).
The empirical record suggests this concern is well founded. Literature documents a persistent structural asymmetry: international actors routinely treat local expertise as contextual information useful for refining externally designed programs, rather than as substantive knowledge capable of defining peacebuilding priorities in the first place (Hellmüller, 2014). As explained, mandate logics also introduce their own axis of divergence: humanitarian, development, and peace organisations may be working from structurally distinct understandings of what a peaceful outcome looks like in short, medium and long-term and how to achieve it. Together, organisational type and mandate, represent two sources of divergence. Mapping both empirically is therefore a step toward understanding which actors in the organisational landscape of peacebuilding are better suited to serve the communities they claim to represent and work for.
Methodological approach
The survey was created and deployed online using LimeSurvey during the last quarter of 2025 across three countries: Mali, South Sudan and Syria, and in three languages: French, English and Arabic. The invitation lists comprised civil society actors of different types, active in humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding work, identified through commissioned mappings in each country. Of approximately 200 organisations that were invited, 83 responded. This pre-sampling approach was necessary given that a considerable number of organisations working in these contexts do not have a digital presence or are not publicly listed. Respondents included organisations that self-identified as local, national, faith-based, international, or international non-governmental organisation including both headquarters and country branches. While the resulting sample is informative, it should not be considered statistically representative of all relevant organisations in these contexts.
The survey comprised of three main sets of questions. The first focused on a set of activities organised into categories, aimed at identifying the types of actions organisations prioritise and undertake in the pursuit of peace. These categories were informed by findings from the previous project, as well as insights from academic and grey literature, all of which are detailed in the summary design chapter. The second set examined how these organisations understand peace, based on a framework of dimensions related to positive peace, negative peace, conflict transformation, and individual and collective human rights. Respondents could not return to previous questions, keeping the two sections distinct and responses independent. The relationship between them was therefore explored only at the analytical stage. A third and separate set of questions focused on defining the organisational characteristics and institutional backgrounds of the respondents, which helped us contrast the answers between countries and within each context, according to organisation type and mandate. Geographic scope was also included as a category to allow us to explore the differences within each country, as it is detailed in their respective dedicated chapters.
Peace actions: key findings
As for the first part, regarding how organisations approach peace through their actions, the survey findings shed light on both shared views and important differences across contexts. A consistent pattern, however, is that the embeddedness of organisations to local contexts systematically shapes the prioritisation of peacebuilding activities. Those more locally embedded in their contexts tend to strive for tangible activities and results, while those whose hierarchies and decision-making processes are geographically further removed from the local, as national or international actors, are more prone to choose strategic and institutional activities with increasingly abstract outcomes. Some few examples and nuanced shades within these categories are worth highlighting, as follows:
Monitoring and protection. This category is where the highest degree of consensus is found. In all contexts, across all organisation types and mandates, promoting and protecting human rights, with attention to women and minority groups is consistently top-ranked. This near-universal consensus suggests that human rights protection functions as a foundational frame for peacebuilding work regardless of organisational level, mandate, or context. A small distinction emerges between local actors, who tend to prioritise tracking incidents of violence and monitoring legal and political developments, and those national and international ones, who give greater weight to monitoring the implementation of peace agreements and processes—activities of a broader and macro nature.
Advocacy. Across mandates and organisation types in all contexts, raising awareness and mobilising support stands out as priority, on par with negotiating or advocating for safe access to humanitarian aid. In all contexts, except for Mali, the promotion of governance reforms – such as transparency or constitutional processes – is advocated by those less locally embedded, such as National NGOs or INGOs. For its part, amplifying the voices of marginalised groups or speaking on their behalf shows varied patterns, sometimes ranked higher by locally embedded organisations than by INGOs, as in Syria, and sometimes the reverse, as in Mali.
Social engagement. Educational and cultural events (workshops, training sessions, festivals) rank among the first for virtually all organisation types in Mali, South Sudan, and Syria alike. This holds for LNGOs, NNGOs, and HQ-INGOs, and for all activity mandates. These activities are accessible, visible, and measurable, which likely makes them attractive to organisations operating under resource and accountability pressures at any level.
Inclusion. This is a strongly contested category where no single activity is repeatedly ranked first across all organisation types and mandates in all three countries – which hints to the variance of theories of change of those who realise the activities. For some, the priority is challenging harmful gender norms; for others, it is promoting mutual respect and trust. For those working in all three Nexus mandates (humanitarian, development, peace), facilitating dialogue between people from different background often figures among their key priorities; however, when each mandate is considered separately, no single shared priority emerges. Strikingly, in all cases and contexts, supporting the reintegration of former combatants consistently ranks among the last.
Social cohesion. Similar to inclusion, this category shows wide divergence between organisation types and mandates in all three countries, and its implementation depends heavily on context-specific dynamics. In this case, this foreshadows not only difference in the organisations’ respective theories of change but also in the ideas they have on what holds communities together: shared experience, institutional representation or economic cooperation. LNGOs and NNGOs in Mali, and LNGOs in South Sudan and Syria, tend to cluster around activities that produce visible, collective experiences: joint events, shared meals, cultural spaces. INGOs, in contrast, consistently assign relatively high importance to building diverse staff team, while NNGOs in Syria stand apart by prioritising economic and livelihoods initiatives. Unlike other categories, the mandate dimension does not produce a clear distinctive pattern here which suggests that, for this category, embeddedness to communities may shape priorities more visibly than mandate itself.
Conflict resolution. In this category of activities there is a wide consensus where community dialogue spaces and training of local mediators rank first and second across nearly all types and mandates and all three countries. This convergence likely reflects the standardisation of approaches regardless of context, types or mandates. In contrast, except for some peace organisations in Syria and South Sudan, truth and reconciliation mechanisms are consistently ranked last, which is worth reflecting on since these activities are usually considered foundational for durable peace.
Service Related. In this category, with certain exceptions, a pattern emerges across all three countries: local and national NGOs often prioritise more immediate, survival-related and community-oriented activities, while INGOs are inclined to favour more complex interventions whose results may become visible over the longer term. Across all contexts, INGOs tend to rank specialised interventions —such as trauma healing, legal aid, or livelihood support— higher than activities that focus on basic survival needs. For locally embedded organisations, the logic typically runs in the opposite direction. When comparing organisations by mandate scope, a gradual tendency also appears: those active across the three mandates (HDP) tend to rank both survival‑related and specialised services highly at the same time, while those working with two mandates show a more mixed pattern, with some prioritising one type of activities over the other. Single‑mandate organisations, in turn, more consistently prioritise survival‑related and basic needs activities.
Prevention. Across all three countries, the five possible prevention activities to choose from are consistently present, but their relative ordering shifts dramatically by organisation type. For example, for the engagement of youth or vulnerable groups in leadership roles, LNGOs rank it first or second in all three countries without exception. HQ-INGOs, by contrast, rank it last — fifth out of five — in all three countries simultaneously. The mirror image of this pattern, largely, appears in early warning and risk analysis activities. By contrast, building community resilience to shocks and conflicts is the one activity that is prioritised across all types and mandates. In terms of mandate, early warning and building community resilience are consistently ranked highly for organisations working across all three mandates, while for other mandate combinations and single‑mandate organisations, there is greater variability in how these activities are prioritised.
Peace understandings: key findings
As for the second part, in terms of how organisations understand peace as measured through different dimensions, it is worth noting a constraint that shapes how such understandings can be interpreted. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of each proposed understanding of peace on a five-point scale, rather than to provide open-ended definitions. In general, responses clustered heavily on the options “important” and “very important”, across virtually all 22 dimensions, in all contexts, types of organisations and mandates. This effect makes it hard to draw conclusions on what organisations endorse. Alternatively, we looked at what organisations hesitated over or diverged from the consensus, in other words, when they gave a low rating to a dimension. In this respect, a divergent rating does not necessarily mean an organisation considers a dimension irrelevant to peace in principle. It may equally reflect that the dimension falls outside their mandate, resonates poorly with their operational context, or sits at odds with locally held understandings that the survey's pre-structured framework could not fully capture.
The first and most consistent finding is that several dimensions widely considered foundational to peace from a Western or liberal perspective attract meaningful dissent across all three countries and across multiple organisation types —dissent meaning being ranked on the two lowest categories of importance. The absence of war or armed confrontation — arguably the most minimal definition of peace — generates dissent rates of roughly 9–10% in all three countries simultaneously. Equally, not being subjected to degrading treatment, which maps onto a core principle of international human rights, draws dissent rates between 9% and 13% across Mali, South Sudan, and Syria. These are not outliers: all five negative peace dimensions surveyed register dissent in all three countries across all analytical cuts.
A second finding concerns dimensions that cluster around land, property, and material security. Security over land and property generates the highest dissent rates in the entire survey in both Mali (15.2%) and South Sudan (12.9%), and this divergence spans almost all organisation types in both countries. This suggests that property security as a dimension of peace is widely felt to be either contextually complicated, politically contested, or simply not part of how these organisations conceptualise their work.
A third, and possibly the most structurally significant, observation concerns what does not generate dissent. Positive peace dimensions relating to representation, participation, justice, and respectful interaction are almost universally affirmed across all types and all countries. This might suggest a remarkably broad consensus around a comprehensive and rights-based understanding of peace. Given the ceiling effect, however, this near-universal endorsement should be read with caution. It may reflect genuine shared values, but it may also reflect social desirability pressures, such as the anticipation of what a Global-North-based peace institute may like to hear, or simply an inadequate design of this section of survey which by asking organisations to rate rather than rank dimensions allowed for a situation where everything could appear equally important.
Linking understandings of peace with actions
When the sections on peace understandings and peace actions are read together, it reveals a notable disconnect between the two, pointing not only to differences in priorities, but potentially to deeper divergences in how peace is understood to be achieved. This gap becomes visible at an aggregate level precisely because the two sections were deliberately kept separate — with actions assessed before understandings and no questions prompting organisations to connect them — so respondents were never directly confronted with it.
Once again, notwithstanding the discussed limitations, it is clear that positive peace dimensions relating to justice, participation, respectful interaction, living in a healthy environment and representative leadership, are endorsed near-universally. Nonetheless, the peace actions data tells a different story. The activities that could most directly lead to achieving these aspects of peace rank consistently low in organisational priorities. In contrast, aspects such as daily safety, access to services, freedom of movement, religion and expression tend to be both valued and prioritised upon. This difference may point to the possibility that some dimensions that are endorsed at a general level are not easily translated into clear or implementable activities, particularly in fragile contexts, as some lend themselves to concrete interventions, while others remain tied to broader and less tangible processes.
The picture is further complicated by a pattern that runs in the opposite direction. Several dimensions — including the absence of war and armed confrontation, land and property security, and the absence of violence — are, in each case, actively prioritised operationally by organisations in at least two of the three countries, yet attract meaningful dissent from respondents who do not consider them important for peace. That this disagreement concerns dimensions are often treated as foundational — not only for peace but also within human rights frameworks — makes the pattern particularly difficult to interpret. It may suggest that some of what organisations do is not straightforwardly grounded in local understandings of what peace requires and may reflect external pressures or donor priorities, but it may also point to deeper contestation over whether these dimensions can be meaningfully pursued, or even recognised, within specific contexts.
Taken together, the disconnect could more likely reflect differences in how organisations believe peace is built than a straightforward contradiction between stated values and actual work priorities. Organisations may genuinely agree on what peace looks like as an outcome while holding entirely different assumptions about what kind of work moves communities closer to it, shaped by their mandates, funding, operational constraints, and time horizons. The data cannot resolve whether access to justice or community participation in local decision-making, for example, are absent from action priorities because organisations consider them not relevant, beyond their reach, outside their scope, or simply a task for others. What it does suggest is that a shared vocabulary of peace does not produce a shared theory of change about how to get there.
Whether, in any given context, these different theories of change function as complementary parts of a coherent whole or as parallel approaches that rarely converge in practice remains an open question. The survey cannot resolve it, but it is one that merits further attention from donors and practitioners across the HDP Nexus.
Conclusions
The concern that motivated this survey was whether the fragmentation of peace understandings documented among international actors in different mandates extended to locally and nationally embedded organisations, and whether that fragmentation followed organisational lines rather than just contextual ones. The data confirms it does. The divergences observed are not primarily products of the conflict environments themselves; they are organisational too. Across Mali, South Sudan, and Syria, each with its own conflict history, patterns of both convergence and divergence across local, national, and international actors surface, suggesting that embeddedness shapes how peace is understood, at least as much as the environment in which these organisations operate.
This finding has a direct implication for localisation practice. The case for local ownership is typically justified based on proximity and contextual knowledge. The evidence presented here suggests a deeper layer: locally embedded actors may not only interpret context differently but may also define peacebuilding goals in fundamentally different ways.
At the same time, the survey reveals something less expected. The dimensions of peace most contested — where organisations question whether these are even essential for peace at all — are precisely those where prioritisation in action is one of the most consistent. That these contested dimensions in some cases are in line with what are widely considered fundamental human rights adds a further layer of tension: it raises the possibility that what is treated as universal in normative frameworks may be experienced as partial in specific operational settings but nonetheless are acted upon.
Conversely, dimensions that are almost universally affirmed tend to remain comparatively low in operational prioritisation. Rather than reflecting a conscious choice between values and action, this gap likely mirrors the cumulative weight of factors that organisations do not fully control: funding cycles, donor frameworks, mandate constraints, path dependency, and even possible the gravitational pull of the immediate and visible results over those structural, slow-moving, and long-term. Understanding which of these forces drives these misalignment remains unclear and is a question that further research would need to pursue.
Addressing that uncertainty, however, points toward a broader challenge. Bridging the gap would require more than the participation of local and national organisations in the design of internationally funded programmes; it would mean creating genuine space for them to shape what such programmes are ultimately intended to achieve. Yet this raises a difficult question: to what extent can such a space accommodate understandings of peace that sit uneasily with what donors and international actors often consider fundamental both to peace and to human rights?
For a more details on the findings per country see the Mali, South Sudan and Syria chapters
Results: How to Read
The survey data allows for multiple avenues of analysis, but in this report, we naturally focus on those that speak directly to our core research questions. Given the complexity of the material, we provide a short guide to help readers navigate the results according to their interests.
For overall differences between the three countries in how peace is operationalised and understood, see the section on Cross-Country Results.
For detailed, context‑specific findings on a single country, consult that country’s chapter, which is organised into:
An analysis of peace‑actions, by mandate and organisational type and geographic differences.
An analysis of understandings of peace, by mandate and organisational type and geographic differences.
For comparative patterns across all three countries in how organisations understand and operationalise peace, disaggregated by mandate and organisational type, see the Synopsis. This section synthesises findings from all sections and was written only after completing the full set of analyses presented in this report therefore also providing a general conclusion.
Finally, to understand the analytical approach underpinning these results, we encourage readers to consult the sections on Survey Design,Sample Overview and Methodology.
Cross-Country Results
This section presents findings that cut across Mali, South Sudan, and Syria, identifying where organisations converge and where they diverge in how they pursue and understand peace. It is intended as a comparative frame before the country-specific sections, which provide for each case a more granular analysis by organisation type, mandate, and geography.
Understanding peace actions
Overall
Agreement on the eight action categories varies across the three countries. Social cohesion stands out as the category with the greatest divergence. Organisations in Mali, South Sudan, and Syria do not converge on a common top priority: in Mali, organising joint community events ranks first, followed by shared economic and livelihood initiatives; in South Sudan and Syria, building diverse staff teams that reflect the communities served takes precedence, while economic initiatives fall to last place. Arts and cultural spaces rank second in both South Sudan and Syria but lowest in Mali. These contrasting patterns suggest there is no single template for operationalising social cohesion — what counts as the right entry point depends heavily on what organisations in each context understand cohesion to be built through.
A similar pattern emerges for service-related activities, with no single dominant country priority. In Mali, supporting or providing solutions for displaced people is high on the agenda, in South Sudan, the focus is on facilitating trauma healing and, in Syria, helping individuals meet their urgent and essential needs. Conversely, improving access to healthcare is consistently ranked low (ranks 5–7), and helping communities strengthen economic ties with others also lags. Across all three contexts, activities addressing the most acute and visible needs — such as displacement, trauma, or basic survival — are prioritised over those whose results are expected to materialise in the longer term, such as improved health systems or more integrated local economies. This suggests a common tendency to prioritise immediate stabilisation as a pathway to peace, rather than investing in longer-term structural transformations of service systems.
The category with the highest level of agreement across countries is social engagement. In all three contexts, organising educational or cultural events ranks first, followed by efforts to prevent harmful behaviours or to promote peaceful values through media and dialogue, which alternate between second and third place. The use of storytelling, theatre, or arts-based approaches consistently ranks lowest. Across contexts, the activities prioritised share a common feature: they are accessible to broad segments of the population and lend themselves to visible and measurable forms of engagement (e.g. participation levels or feedback). In other words, peace in this domain appears to be advanced primarily through structured collective activities that are visible, inclusive, and rather straightforward.
Monitoring and Protection
| Activities | MLI | SSD | SYR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Promoting and protecting human rights, with attention to women and minority groups | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Monitoring the implementation and progress of peace efforts, agreements or processes. | 2 | 4 | 2 |
| Tracking or reporting incidents of violence or injustice | 3 | 2 | 4 |
| Monitoring and informing communities about legal or political developments. | 4 | 2 | 3 |
|
Table 2.2. Monitoring & Protection - Overall
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
Advocacy
| Activities | MLI | SSD | SYR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Raising awareness, mobilising support, or participating in campaigns for peace-related causes. | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Negotiating or advocating for safe access to humanitarian aid, health services, or relief efforts in conflict-affected a | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| Initiatives to promote transparency, accountability, or monitor corruption and abuse of authority | 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Providing advice or support to security sector reform (e.g. police, army) | 6 | 7 | 6 |
| Speaking on behalf of marginalised groups | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| Supporting constitutional processes and national dialogue | 4 | 5 | 5 |
| Assisting in organising elections or transitional political processes | 7 | 6 | 7 |
|
Table 2.2.a. Advocacy - Overall
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
Inclusion
| Activities | MLI | SSD | SYR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facilitating dialogue and interaction between people from different communities, backgrounds, or religions | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| Promoting mutual respect, trust, and collaboration between groups with a history of tension or conflict , including part | 4 | 3 | 3 |
| Creating opportunities for women, youth, or marginalised groups to participate in community life | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Supporting efforts to challenge harmful gender norms, roles, or expectations placed on men and women | 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Encouraging joint planning, dialogue, or shared visions for the future | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Supporting reintegration of former combatants into communities | 6 | 6 | 6 |
|
Table 2.4. Inclusion - Overall
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
Cohesion
| Activities | MLI | SSD | SYR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Organising joint community actions or events (e.g. cleanups, festivals, shared meals) | 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Creating or restoring inclusive and safe public spaces for community use | 3 | 3 | 4 |
| Supporting shared economic or livelihood initiatives (e.g. cooperatives, joint markets) | 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Building diverse staff teams that reflect the communities served | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| Creating inclusive spaces for arts, sports, or cultural interaction | 5 | 2 | 2 |
|
Table 2.5. Cohesion - Overall
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
Conflict Resolution
| Activities | MLI | SSD | SYR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supporting or creating spaces for community dialogue | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Mediating or directly facilitating the resolution of local disputes or tensions between individuals,families or groups | 3 | 2 | 4 |
| Supporting traditional conflict resolution systems (e.g. elders, popular courts) | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| Training or supporting local leaders to mediate conflicts | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| Supporting or establishing local community committees (e.g. for infrastructure, land use, natural resource management) | 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Supporting or creating mechanisms that address historical injustices or facilitating truth-telling and reconciliation pr | 8 | 8 | 8 |
| Creating new local structures for resolving conflict | 6 | 7 | 5 |
| Bringing communities and justice actors together to build understanding, offer guidance, and strengthen confidence in th | 6 | 6 | 3 |
|
Table 2.6. Conflict Resolution - Overall
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
Prevention
| Activities | MLI | SSD | SYR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Promoting early warning, risk analysis, and responsive information services | 3 | 2 | 4 |
| Building community resilience to shocks or conflict | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| Engaging youth or vulnerable groups in leadership roles | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Considering and minimising any unintended effects of your organisation’s work (e.g. do-no-harm programming, feedback mec | 2 | 4 | 3 |
| Engaging communities in climate adaptation or disaster risk reduction planning | 5 | 5 | 5 |
|
Table 2.8. Prevention - Overall
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
Understandings of peace
As noted in the methods section, responses in this part of the survey clustered heavily on the higher options of the five-point scale — "important" and "very important —, which makes challenging the scope for meaningful analysis. Possible explanations for this ceiling effect include genuinely perceptions of high importance, as well as biases stemming from social desirability and power asymmetries embedded in Global North-South relations (Lee & Woodliffe, 2010). More specifically, local organisations may have anticipated possible funding opportunities from bicc, a European research institute, prompting them to provide responses in ways that they thought might have advanced their interests rather than genuinely reflect their priorities (Beaumais, 2023).
Due to the above, we draw attention not only to the areas of greatest divergence across the three countries, but also to those dimensions often regarded as central to peace from a predominantly Western or liberal perspective — a framework we acknowledge that may not capture how peace is understood and experienced in the contexts where these organisations work.
The dimensions that show divergence tend to cluster around three areas: access to land and material resources, basic physical security, and social relations within communities.
Security over land and property generates high dissent rates in Mali (15.2%) and South Sudan (12.9%), concentrated among LNGOs and NNGOs, yet produces no dissent at all in Syria. This pattern might be explained since in both contexts displacement and resource competition are essential issues in the conflicts they are facing.
Not being subjected to degrading treatment draws dissent rates between 9% and 13% across all three contexts, and the absence of war or armed confrontation — a core dimension of negative peace — generates roughly 9–10% dissent simultaneously in Mali, South Sudan, and Syria.
A second notable pattern relates to how negative peace dimensions are perceived across countries. All five negative peace dimensions — freedom from violence, from war, from physical insecurity, from degrading treatment, and freedom of movement — register dissent in all three countries simultaneously, making them the most consistently contested dimensions across the dataset. This cross-country consistency is one of the clearest patterns in the data: regardless of context, a meaningful share of organisations in each country does not consider at least some of these foundational thresholds essential to peace.
Positive peace dimensions are also contested. Seven of the seventeen positive peace dimensions also generate dissent across all three countries — earn a living, gender relations, cultural diversity, reciprocal relationships, freedom of expression, emotional well-being, and a healthy environment — though typically at lower rates than the negative peace cluster. The negative/positive distinction matters, but country context shapes it considerably.
South Sudan drives much of this pattern and stands as a notable exception. It is the only country where every single dimension — all twenty-two — registers at least some dissent, and thirteen reach rates at or above 10 per cent, including justice, community participation, representative leadership, work rights, access to services, earn a living, gender relations, and cultural diversity, alongside the negative peace dimensions already noted. In Mali and Syria, by contrast, four and nine positive peace dimensions respectively show no dissent at all.
Beyond these cross-cutting patterns, some dimensions show divergence specific to individual countries. In Mali, the statement related to visibility in the eyes of local institutions stands out — not only for its dissent rate (18.2%) but for the high proportion of neutral responses alongside it. In South Sudan, minority inclusion (13.3%) and respect for cultural diversity (13.3%) both generate divergence across most organisation types and geographic regions, alongside notable dissent on gender relations (10% dissent, 13% neutral). In Syria, minority inclusion generates dissent (around 10%), in contrast to the near absence of divergence on other dimensions. Each of these country-specific patterns is examined in detail in the country sections.
Linking actions and understandings
This sub-chapter offers an empirical look at the relationship between how organisations define peace and how they pursue it across the three countries. By linking the action priorities with the understanding dimensions from the survey, we can move beyond describing what organisations do or believe in isolation and instead ask whether the two are consistent. The analysis was conducted at the overall country level, where sample sizes are largest and missing values fewest, giving the most reliable basis for comparison.
As described in the methodology, for each of the twenty-two understanding dimensions we mapped the action activities that most plausibly contribute to each of them and proceeded to extract the rankings those activities received in each country. To make them comparable, we converted these rankings into an operational priority score between zero and a hundred — where higher values indicate that the linked activities were ranked closer to the top of their category. We then averaged these scores across all activities linked to a given dimension to produce a single operational priority estimate per dimension and country. Reading this operational priority score estimate alongside the dissent indicator allows us to assess, for each dimension, whether organisational practice align with stated understandings of peace.
The figures below present this relationship as a scatter plot for each country. Each point represents one of the twenty-two understanding dimensions, positioned according to how well it is covered operationally (horizontal axis) and how contested it is conceptually (vertical axis). The two dashed lines mark the median of each axis within the country, dividing the space into four quadrants. Dimensions in the bottom-right are both highly prioritised in action and broadly agreed upon conceptually; those in the top-right are prioritised in action but conceptually disputed; those in the bottom-left are consensually endorsed but ranked low in operational priorities; and those in the top-left are both deprioritised in action and contested as a concept of peace.
Several patterns cut across all three countries. The most consistent gap is found in respectful interaction between people from different backgrounds, which is consensual but poorly prioritised operationally in Mali, South Sudan and Syria alike. Access to justice when people are harmed or in conflict, a leadership that represents the community's interests, and community participation in local decision-making follow a similar pattern in at least two of the three countries — broadly valued, rarely acted upon. At the opposite extreme, the ability to earn a living and support one's family is the only dimension that is both poorly covered and contested everywhere, suggesting that organisations neither address it consistently nor agree on whether it belongs within the scope of peacebuilding.
In Mali, the dimensions where operational priorities and conceptual preferences align most clearly are daily safety, freedom of movement, harmonious gender relations, freedom of expression, reciprocal relationships among neighbours, and fair access to services. Where operational priorities are present, but conceptual agreements weaker — the absence of war, land and property security, religious freedom, the absence of violence, and fair working conditions — organisations appear to be acting on these dimensions without universal recognition of their relevance to peace. A distinct pattern emerges for visibility in the eyes of local institutions, the ability to earn a living, and emotional well-being and mental health: these are neither prioritised operationally nor broadly endorsed conceptually — an internal consistency that nonetheless suggests a shared scepticism about their place in peacebuilding that deserves further examination.
South Sudan presents the most fragmented picture of the three countries. Full alignment between operational priorities and conceptual preferences is achieved only for freedom of movement, freedom of expression, daily safety, visibility in the eyes of local institutions, and religious freedom. The largest single cluster — encompassing access to justice, representative leadership, community participation, the absence of violence, fair working conditions and livelihoods — combines poor operational prioritisation with meaningful dissent. South Sudan also has the highest number of dimensions where organisations prioritise operationally, but conceptual agreement is weak, including land and property security, degrading treatment, harmonious gender relations, minority inclusion and respect for diverse cultural identities.
Syria is characterised above all by a large cluster of dimensions that are near-universally endorsed but poorly prioritised operationally. Land and property security, access to justice, representative leadership, visibility in the eyes of local institutions, respectful interaction, and community participation all receive no dissent from Syrian respondents — not a single organisation rated them as unimportant — yet all rank among the least prioritised in the country. This is the sharpest expression of the gap between conceptual consensus and operational priorities found anywhere in the dataset, and most plausibly reflects the severity of constraints under which Syrian organisations operate. A separate cluster of dimensions are highly ranked operationally nonetheless attract meaningful contestation — harmonious gender relations, the absence of war, degrading treatment, minority inclusion, respect for diverse cultural identities, daily safety and emotional well-being — suggesting that a share of what organisations place at the top of their priorities is not unambiguously recognised as peace work by all respondents. Finally, religious freedom, work rights and fair access to services stand out as the clearest cases of genuine alignment in Syria, prioritised and broadly agreed upon.
Mali
Understanding peace actions
0 - Overall
In Mali, with fifteen LNGOs and twelve NNGOs among the thirty-one respondents, the findings carry a strong local and national imprint that shapes several of the patterns discussed in the analysis. Against this backdrop, the categories showing the greatest divergence across organisation types and mandates are service provision, prevention, and advocacy — while monitoring and protection, social engagement, and conflict resolution show comparatively high consensus. This pattern is not incidental: the categories that diverge most are precisely those where mandate logic and organisational embeddedness to communities most directly shape what is considered actionable.
In terms of service provision, supporting or providing solutions for displaced populations ranks first for almost all organisation types, mandates and those working in different regions. This geographic consistency reflects the scale and centrality of displacement in the Malian context. A closer look, however, reveals meaningful differences beneath this surface agreement. Local and national NGOs converge on displaced populations as their top priority, while INGO headquarters prioritise trauma healing, psychosocial, or mental health services, followed by legal access.
Addressing urgent needs such as food and shelter ranks high for NNGOs, in contrast to other organisation types, who rank it sixth. In general, activities oriented toward immediate survival are ranked higher by those closer to the ground — LNGOs and NNGOs — while headquarters-based INGOs tend to prioritise interventions requiring higher degrees of specialisation, such as legal services or mental health support.
A similar pattern appears in advocacy, where promoting transparency, accountability, and anti-corruption monitoring ranks highest among INGO headquarters, while falling for more locally grounded organisations. In contrast, across mandate types, there is strong consensus across mandate types (HDP+, DP+, peace-only, and others) regarding the top priority: raising awareness and mobilising support for peace-related causes consistently ranks first. Divergence becomes more visible further down the ranking. HDP+ organisations place safe access negotiation as their second priority, reflecting their operational proximity to humanitarian constraints, whereas security sector reform and electoral processes rank low for them (sixth–seventh), yet appear as second-order priorities for development–peace and peace-focused organisations.
In prevention, noticeable divergence emerges in core priorities, reflecting mandate-specific lenses rather than a shared strategic consensus. Organisations operating across the full HDP nexus prioritise building community resilience to shocks or conflict, whereas those focused on development and peace — or peace alone — place greater emphasis on minimising unintended harm through do-no-harm approaches and feedback mechanisms. Youth engagement functions as a variable priority, ranging from first to fourth place depending on mandate. Contrastingly, climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction consistently rank low (fourth or fifth), and in some cases are barely present. This last, when looked by organisation type, is only highly prioritised by INGO headquarters.
1 - Monitoring and Protection
By Org Type
| Activities | LNGO | NNGO | HQ-INGO |
|---|---|---|---|
| Promoting and protecting human rights, with attention to women and minority groups | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Monitoring the implementation and progress of peace efforts, agreements or processes. | 2 | 2 | |
| Tracking or reporting incidents of violence or injustice | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| Monitoring and informing communities about legal or political developments. | 3 | 4 | 3 |
|
Table 3.1.a. Monitoring & Protection - MLI
(a)LNGO (Local NGO); NNGO (National NGO); FO (Faith Organisation);
L-INGO (Local office of an International NGO); L-UN/IO (Local
UN/International Organisation office); HQ-INGO (INGO headquarters);
HQ-UN/IO (UN/International Organisation headquarters).
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Activity Type
| Activities | HDP+ | DP+ | Oth |
|---|---|---|---|
| Promoting and protecting human rights, with attention to women and minority groups | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Monitoring the implementation and progress of peace efforts, agreements or processes. | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Tracking or reporting incidents of violence or injustice | 3 | 3 | |
| Monitoring and informing communities about legal or political developments. | 4 | 4 | |
|
Table 3.1.b. Monitoring & Protection - MLI
(a)H = Humanitarian; D = Development; P = Peace; Oth = Other. Combined
labels (e.g., HDP+, DP+) indicate organisations working across multiple
sectors; ‘+’ denotes any other non-identified mandate.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Geography
| Activities | South | Center | North-E | North-W |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Promoting and protecting human rights, with attention to women and minority groups | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Monitoring the implementation and progress of peace efforts, agreements or processes. | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Tracking or reporting incidents of violence or injustice | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Monitoring and informing communities about legal or political developments. | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
|
Table 3.1.c. Monitoring & Protection - MLI
(a)Regions: South (Kayes–Ségou area); Center (Mopti–San–Bandiagara
zone); North-East (Gao–Ménaka area); North-West (Tombouctou–Kidal area).
All = nationwide coverage across regions. Combined codes indicate
multi-region coverage.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
2 - Advocacy
By Org Type
| Activities | LNGO | NNGO | HQ-INGO |
|---|---|---|---|
| Raising awareness, mobilising support, or participating in campaigns for peace-related causes. | 1 | 1 | |
| Providing advice or support to security sector reform (e.g. police, army) | 5 | 4 | |
| Speaking on behalf of marginalised groups | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| Negotiating or advocating for safe access to humanitarian aid, health services, or relief efforts in conflict-affected a | 4 | 2 | 3 |
| Supporting constitutional processes and national dialogue | 2 | 4 | |
| Assisting in organising elections or transitional political processes | 6 | 7 | |
| Initiatives to promote transparency, accountability, or monitor corruption and abuse of authority | 7 | 6 | 1 |
|
Table 3.2.a. Advocacy - MLI
(a)LNGO (Local NGO); NNGO (National NGO); FO (Faith Organisation);
L-INGO (Local office of an International NGO); L-UN/IO (Local
UN/International Organisation office); HQ-INGO (INGO headquarters);
HQ-UN/IO (UN/International Organisation headquarters).
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Activity Type
| Activities | HDP+ | DP+ | P+ | Oth |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raising awareness, mobilising support, or participating in campaigns for peace-related causes. | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Negotiating or advocating for safe access to humanitarian aid, health services, or relief efforts in conflict-affected a | 2 | |||
| Speaking on behalf of marginalised groups | 3 | 2 | ||
| Initiatives to promote transparency, accountability, or monitor corruption and abuse of authority | 5 | 5 | 1 | |
| Providing advice or support to security sector reform (e.g. police, army) | 6 | 2 | 3 | |
| Supporting constitutional processes and national dialogue | 4 | 4 | 2 | |
| Assisting in organising elections or transitional political processes | 7 | 6 | 2 | 4 |
|
Table 3.2.b. Advocacy - MLI
(a)H = Humanitarian; D = Development; P = Peace; Oth = Other. Combined
labels (e.g., HDP+, DP+) indicate organisations working across multiple
sectors; ‘+’ denotes any other non-identified mandate.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Geography
| Activities | South | Center | North-E | North-W |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raising awareness, mobilising support, or participating in campaigns for peace-related causes. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Negotiating or advocating for safe access to humanitarian aid, health services, or relief efforts in conflict-affected a | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Initiatives to promote transparency, accountability, or monitor corruption and abuse of authority | 4 | 6 | 7 | 7 |
| Speaking on behalf of marginalised groups | 5 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| Supporting constitutional processes and national dialogue | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| Providing advice or support to security sector reform (e.g. police, army) | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Assisting in organising elections or transitional political processes | 6 | 7 | 6 | 6 |
|
Table 3.2.c. Advocacy - MLI
(a)Regions: South (Kayes–Ségou area); Center (Mopti–San–Bandiagara
zone); North-East (Gao–Ménaka area); North-West (Tombouctou–Kidal area).
All = nationwide coverage across regions. Combined codes indicate
multi-region coverage.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
4 - Inclusion
By Org Type
| Activities | LNGO | NNGO | HQ-INGO |
|---|---|---|---|
| Creating opportunities for women, youth, or marginalised groups to participate in community life | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| Facilitating dialogue and interaction between people from different communities, backgrounds, or religions | 4 | 1 | 6 |
| Promoting mutual respect, trust, and collaboration between groups with a history of tension or conflict , including part | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Supporting efforts to challenge harmful gender norms, roles, or expectations placed on men and women | 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Encouraging joint planning, dialogue, or shared visions for the future | 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Supporting reintegration of former combatants into communities | 6 | 6 | 5 |
|
Table 3.4.a. Inclusion - MLI
(a)LNGO (Local NGO); NNGO (National NGO); FO (Faith Organisation);
L-INGO (Local office of an International NGO); L-UN/IO (Local
UN/International Organisation office); HQ-INGO (INGO headquarters);
HQ-UN/IO (UN/International Organisation headquarters).
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Activity Type
| Activities | HDP+ | DP+ | P+ | Oth |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Facilitating dialogue and interaction between people from different communities, backgrounds, or religions | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| Promoting mutual respect, trust, and collaboration between groups with a history of tension or conflict , including part | 2 | 2 | ||
| Creating opportunities for women, youth, or marginalised groups to participate in community life | 1 | 5 | 3 | 2 |
| Supporting efforts to challenge harmful gender norms, roles, or expectations placed on men and women | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Encouraging joint planning, dialogue, or shared visions for the future | 5 | 1 | ||
| Supporting reintegration of former combatants into communities | 6 | |||
|
Table 3.4.b. Inclusion - MLI
(a)H = Humanitarian; D = Development; P = Peace; Oth = Other. Combined
labels (e.g., HDP+, DP+) indicate organisations working across multiple
sectors; ‘+’ denotes any other non-identified mandate.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Geography
| Activities | South | Center | North-E | North-W |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Facilitating dialogue and interaction between people from different communities, backgrounds, or religions | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 |
| Supporting efforts to challenge harmful gender norms, roles, or expectations placed on men and women | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Encouraging joint planning, dialogue, or shared visions for the future | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Creating opportunities for women, youth, or marginalised groups to participate in community life | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
| Promoting mutual respect, trust, and collaboration between groups with a history of tension or conflict , including part | 4 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
| Supporting reintegration of former combatants into communities | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
|
Table 3.4.c. Inclusion - MLI
(a)Regions: South (Kayes–Ségou area); Center (Mopti–San–Bandiagara
zone); North-East (Gao–Ménaka area); North-West (Tombouctou–Kidal area).
All = nationwide coverage across regions. Combined codes indicate
multi-region coverage.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
5 - Cohesion
By Org Type
| Activities | LNGO | NNGO | HQ-INGO |
|---|---|---|---|
| Organising joint community actions or events (e.g. cleanups, festivals, shared meals) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Creating or restoring inclusive and safe public spaces for community use | 3 | 3 | 4 |
| Supporting shared economic or livelihood initiatives (e.g. cooperatives, joint markets) | 2 | 2 | 5 |
| Creating inclusive spaces for arts, sports, or cultural interaction | 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Building diverse staff teams that reflect the communities served | 4 | 4 | 2 |
|
Table 3.5.a. Cohesion - MLI
(a)LNGO (Local NGO); NNGO (National NGO); FO (Faith Organisation);
L-INGO (Local office of an International NGO); L-UN/IO (Local
UN/International Organisation office); HQ-INGO (INGO headquarters);
HQ-UN/IO (UN/International Organisation headquarters).
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Activity Type
| Activities | HDP+ | DP+ | P+ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Organising joint community actions or events (e.g. cleanups, festivals, shared meals) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Supporting shared economic or livelihood initiatives (e.g. cooperatives, joint markets) | 2 | 4 | |
| Creating or restoring inclusive and safe public spaces for community use | 3 | 4 | |
| Building diverse staff teams that reflect the communities served | 4 | 3 | |
| Creating inclusive spaces for arts, sports, or cultural interaction | 5 | 1 | 2 |
|
Table 3.5.b. Cohesion - MLI
(a)H = Humanitarian; D = Development; P = Peace; Oth = Other. Combined
labels (e.g., HDP+, DP+) indicate organisations working across multiple
sectors; ‘+’ denotes any other non-identified mandate.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Geography
| Activities | South | Center | North-E | North-W |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organising joint community actions or events (e.g. cleanups, festivals, shared meals) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Creating or restoring inclusive and safe public spaces for community use | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| Supporting shared economic or livelihood initiatives (e.g. cooperatives, joint markets) | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| Building diverse staff teams that reflect the communities served | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
| Creating inclusive spaces for arts, sports, or cultural interaction | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
|
Table 3.5.c. Cohesion - MLI
(a)Regions: South (Kayes–Ségou area); Center (Mopti–San–Bandiagara
zone); North-East (Gao–Ménaka area); North-West (Tombouctou–Kidal area).
All = nationwide coverage across regions. Combined codes indicate
multi-region coverage.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
6 - Conflict Resolution
By Org Type
| Activities | LNGO | NNGO | HQ-INGO |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supporting or creating spaces for community dialogue | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Mediating or directly facilitating the resolution of local disputes or tensions between individuals,families or groups | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Training or supporting local leaders to mediate conflicts | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| Supporting traditional conflict resolution systems (e.g. elders, popular courts) | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Supporting or establishing local community committees (e.g. for infrastructure, land use, natural resource management) | 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Creating new local structures for resolving conflict | 8 | 6 | 5 |
| Bringing communities and justice actors together to build understanding, offer guidance, and strengthen confidence in th | 6 | 7 | 7 |
| Supporting or creating mechanisms that address historical injustices or facilitating truth-telling and reconciliation pr | 7 | 8 | |
|
Table 3.6.a. Conflict Resolution - MLI
(a)LNGO (Local NGO); NNGO (National NGO); FO (Faith Organisation);
L-INGO (Local office of an International NGO); L-UN/IO (Local
UN/International Organisation office); HQ-INGO (INGO headquarters);
HQ-UN/IO (UN/International Organisation headquarters).
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Activity Type
| Activities | HDP+ | DP+ | P+ | Oth |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supporting or creating spaces for community dialogue | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Mediating or directly facilitating the resolution of local disputes or tensions between individuals,families or groups | 3 | 4 | 2 | |
| Supporting traditional conflict resolution systems (e.g. elders, popular courts) | 4 | 2 | ||
| Training or supporting local leaders to mediate conflicts | 2 | 3 | ||
| Supporting or establishing local community committees (e.g. for infrastructure, land use, natural resource management) | 5 | 4 | ||
| Creating new local structures for resolving conflict | 6 | |||
| Bringing communities and justice actors together to build understanding, offer guidance, and strengthen confidence in th | 7 | 6 | ||
| Supporting or creating mechanisms that address historical injustices or facilitating truth-telling and reconciliation pr | 8 | 3 | ||
|
Table 3.6.b. Conflict Resolution - MLI
(a)H = Humanitarian; D = Development; P = Peace; Oth = Other. Combined
labels (e.g., HDP+, DP+) indicate organisations working across multiple
sectors; ‘+’ denotes any other non-identified mandate.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Geography
| Activities | South | Center | North-E | North-W |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supporting or creating spaces for community dialogue | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Mediating or directly facilitating the resolution of local disputes or tensions between individuals,families or groups | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| Training or supporting local leaders to mediate conflicts | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Supporting traditional conflict resolution systems (e.g. elders, popular courts) | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Supporting or establishing local community committees (e.g. for infrastructure, land use, natural resource management) | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Supporting or creating mechanisms that address historical injustices or facilitating truth-telling and reconciliation pr | 6 | 7 | 7 | 6 |
| Creating new local structures for resolving conflict | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 |
| Bringing communities and justice actors together to build understanding, offer guidance, and strengthen confidence in th | 7 | 6 | 6 | 8 |
|
Table 3.6.c. Conflict Resolution - MLI
(a)Regions: South (Kayes–Ségou area); Center (Mopti–San–Bandiagara
zone); North-East (Gao–Ménaka area); North-West (Tombouctou–Kidal area).
All = nationwide coverage across regions. Combined codes indicate
multi-region coverage.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
8 - Preventive
By Org Type
| Activities | LNGO | NNGO | HQ-INGO |
|---|---|---|---|
| Promoting early warning, risk analysis, and responsive information services | 3 | 5 | 1 |
| Building community resilience to shocks or conflict | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Engaging youth or vulnerable groups in leadership roles | 2 | 2 | 5 |
| Engaging communities in climate adaptation or disaster risk reduction planning | 5 | 4 | 3 |
| Considering and minimising any unintended effects of your organisation’s work (e.g. do-no-harm programming, feedback mec | 4 | 3 | 4 |
|
Table 3.8.a. Prevention - MLI
(a)LNGO (Local NGO); NNGO (National NGO); FO (Faith Organisation);
L-INGO (Local office of an International NGO); L-UN/IO (Local
UN/International Organisation office); HQ-INGO (INGO headquarters);
HQ-UN/IO (UN/International Organisation headquarters).
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Activity Type
| Activities | HDP+ | DP+ | P+ | Oth |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Promoting early warning, risk analysis, and responsive information services | 2 | 3 | 2 | |
| Building community resilience to shocks or conflict | 1 | 3 | 3 | |
| Engaging youth or vulnerable groups in leadership roles | 3 | 2 | 4 | 1 |
| Engaging communities in climate adaptation or disaster risk reduction planning | 4 | 5 | ||
| Considering and minimising any unintended effects of your organisation’s work (e.g. do-no-harm programming, feedback mec | 5 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
|
Table 3.8.b. Prevention - MLI
(a)H = Humanitarian; D = Development; P = Peace; Oth = Other. Combined
labels (e.g., HDP+, DP+) indicate organisations working across multiple
sectors; ‘+’ denotes any other non-identified mandate.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Geography
| Activities | South | Center | North-E | North-W |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Promoting early warning, risk analysis, and responsive information services | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Building community resilience to shocks or conflict | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Engaging youth or vulnerable groups in leadership roles | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Considering and minimising any unintended effects of your organisation’s work (e.g. do-no-harm programming, feedback mec | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Engaging communities in climate adaptation or disaster risk reduction planning | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
|
Table 3.8.c. Prevention - MLI
(a)Regions: South (Kayes–Ségou area); Center (Mopti–San–Bandiagara
zone); North-East (Gao–Ménaka area); North-West (Tombouctou–Kidal area).
All = nationwide coverage across regions. Combined codes indicate
multi-region coverage.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
Understanding peace
0 - Overall
For Mali, the greatest divergence in understandings of peace appears in the categories of visibility in the eyes of local institutions, security over land and property, and emotional wellbeing — whether analysed by organisational perspective, activity type or geography. This divergence mainly originates from thirteen organisations, which is about two out of every five surveyed. Each of these organisations rated, on average, three dimensions as low, and some organisations rated as many as nine dimensions as low.
The five negative peace dimensions — absence of violence, war, degrading treatment, physical insecurity, and restrictions on movement — form a distinct set showing modest but consistent dissent across all analytical cuts, ranging from 3% to 9.7% by organisation type and reaching up to 11% when examined geographically. These rates are lower when compared to the top three that generated more dissent, but it is notable since it diverges from what might be expected as core peace dimensions from an external viewpoint — as mentioned already in the cross-country analysis.
Looking deeper into the category of “no one being invisible to the eyes of local authorities”, there is not only a relatively high number of organisations that diverge, but also several that remain neutral. This combination of dissent and neutrality is analytically distinct: organisations that actively rate a dimension as unimportant are making a different kind of statement from those that decline to commit either way. Among LNGOs, 25% express active dissent and a further 19% remain neutral; among NNGOs, 17% dissent. International organisations — both local offices and headquarters — register neither dissent nor neutrality
In the Malian context, where state authority has collapsed or become deeply contested across much of the north and centre of the country, neutrality on this dimension likely reflects genuine uncertainty about whether a functioning relationship between communities and public institutions is a credible basis for peace at all — not indifference to the underlying principle, but scepticism about its current applicability.
Divergence in “People have security over their land and property” spans all types, mandates and geographies – except of INGOs headquarters – with around 15% dissent with zero neutral responses. That the dissent comes from locally and nationally embedded organisations, and not international ones, suggests how politically sensitive and difficult to navigate on the ground in the specific Malian context is this issue, where land contestation, displacement, and tenure insecurity are embedded in the dynamics of the conflict itself.
Dissent regarding "Individuals in the community experience emotional well-being and mental health" appears across all organisation types, mandates, and geographies in Mali, with a closer to 16% dissent. Although the absolute numbers are low, when combined with neutral responses, roughly one in five organisations do not consider emotional well-being essential to peace. As with security, dissent is driven by LNGOs (27%), while NNGOs show modest disagreement (8%) and international organisations none. The cultural and contextual explanations for this pattern remain beyond what the survey data can resolve, and the finding warrants further investigation.
Finally, it is important to note that the categories related to access to services, community participation, inclusion minorities, and respectful interaction are virtually dissent-free.
1 - No Violence
By Org Type
By Activity Type
## [1] "Figure 3.3.b"
By Geography
## [1] "Figure 3.3.d"
2 - No War
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
3 - Safety
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
4 - No Degrading Treatment
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
5 - Free Movement
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
6 - Respectful Interaction
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
7 - Access Services
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
8 - Property Security
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
9 - Justice
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
10 - Earn a Living
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
11 - Reciprocal Relationship
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
12 - Religious Freedom
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
13 - Gender Relations
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
14 - Representative Leadership
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
15 - Community Participation
By Org Type
## [1] "Figure 3.16.d"
By Activity Type
By Geography
16 - Visibility
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
17 - Diversity
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
18 - Work Rights
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
19 - Freedom of Expression
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
20 - Inclusion Minorities
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
21 - Emotional Well-being
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
22 - Healthy Environment
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
South Sudan
Understanding peace actions
0 - Overall
In South Sudan, the survey findings are shaped by a sample dominated by national NGOs (NNGOs) — 24 out of 31 respondents, with only two LNGOs — meaning the data primarily reflects the perspective of nationally embedded organisations and should be interpreted with this composition in mind. Nevertheless, differences emerge across organisation mandates and the geographies in which they operate.
The categories regarding inclusion, prevention, and service-related activities show the greatest divergence, both across organisation types and mandates — where a distinct fault line emerges between organisations involved in peace and those that are not. Although conflict resolution appears divergent at first glance, it shows high underlying agreement once missing values are accounted for. On the other side, monitoring and protection, along with social engagement, display comparatively higher consensus.
In inclusion, divergence is particularly marked and cuts across all three analytical lenses. Across mandates, there is no single shared top priority, though interaction-focused activities emerge as a common entry point. HDP actors rank facilitation of dialogue between diverse communities as their highest priority, an activity that remains among the top four for all other mandate groups. Organisations working mainly with humanitarian and peace mandates place the strongest emphasis on challenging harmful gender roles, while those working across humanitarian and development prioritise creating opportunities for women, youth, and marginalised groups to participate in community life — an activity that, notably, ranks among the lowest priorities for peace-only organisations. Instead, single-mandate peacebuilding actors prioritise encouraging joint planning and shared visions for the future, an emphasis not shared by other mandates.
Across organisation types, local NGOs and INGO headquarters show strong alignment in prioritising activities that promote mutual respect and trust, while national NGOs place greater emphasis on facilitating dialogue across communities. Geographically, this divergence is further reinforced: in Equatoria, creating opportunities for marginalised groups ranks first; in Upper Nile, encouraging joint planning appears among the top three; and in Bahr el Ghazal, challenging harmful gender norms ranks among the top priorities. Across all lenses, the reintegration of former combatants consistently ranks last.
In prevention, a clear structured divide emerges between community-oriented practices and analytical approaches. LNGOs and faith-based organisations consistently prioritise the engagement of youth or vulnerable groups in leadership roles, while NNGOs and INGO headquarters place greater emphasis on early warning and risk analysis. This split is mirrored across mandates: organisations working across the full HDP spectrum, as well as peace-only actors, rank early warning first, whereas those operating without a peace mandate tend to prioritise youth engagement. The do-no-harm approach ranks second among LNGOs but falls lower for other organisation types, while building community resilience occupies a middle position across most groups, suggesting broad recognition of its relevance. In contrast, engagement in climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction is only highly prioritised by faith-based organisations and INGO headquarters, with a lower position among others, and shows limited variation across regions.
For service-related activities, divergence is most clearly structured by mandate and organisational positioning. HDP and HP actors converge around trauma healing and psychosocial support as key priorities, while also placing relatively high importance on access to justice and legal documentation. By contrast, organisations closer to humanitarian and development mandates — excluding peace — prioritise meeting urgent needs and livelihood support. Support to displaced populations appears as a mid-level concern for HDP and purely humanitarian organisations but is not prioritised elsewhere. Improving access to healthcare and strengthening local economic ties are generally ranked lower across groups, suggesting these are not seen as immediate service priorities. Interestingly, providing tools or resources to support livelihoods is only prioritised by organisations working within a single mandate.
Geographically, these patterns reflect displacement dynamics: both the Equatorian region — which saw mass displacement during the times of conflict escalation after 2016 — and Upper Nile rank support to displaced populations in second place, while in Bahr el Ghazal, where internal displacement numbers are lower, it does not appear as a priority; meanwhile meeting urgent needs ranks as a top priority only in Equatoria.
1 - Monitoring and Protection
By Org Type
| Activities | LNGO | NNGO | FO | HQ-INGO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Promoting and protecting human rights, with attention to women and minority groups | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Monitoring and informing communities about legal or political developments. | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 |
| Monitoring the implementation and progress of peace efforts, agreements or processes. | 2 | 4 | ||
| Tracking or reporting incidents of violence or injustice | 3 | 2 | 2 | |
|
Table 4.1.a. Monitoring & Protection- SSD
(a)LNGO (Local NGO); NNGO (National NGO); FO (Faith Organisation);
L-INGO (Local office of an International NGO); L-UN/IO (Local
UN/International Organisation office); HQ-INGO (INGO headquarters);
HQ-UN/IO (UN/International Organisation headquarters).
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Activity Type
| Activities | HDP+ | HP+ | D+ | P+ | H+ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Promoting and protecting human rights, with attention to women and minority groups | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Monitoring the implementation and progress of peace efforts, agreements or processes. | 4 | 2 | 1 | ||
| Monitoring and informing communities about legal or political developments. | 2 | 4 | |||
| Tracking or reporting incidents of violence or injustice | 3 | 3 | 2 | ||
|
Table 4.1.b. Monitoring & Protection- SSD
(a)H = Humanitarian; D = Development; P = Peace; Oth = Other. Combined
labels (e.g., HDP+, DP+) indicate organisations working across multiple
sectors; ‘+’ denotes any other non-identified mandate.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Geography
| Activities | Bahr-el-Ghazal | Equatoria | Upper-Nile |
|---|---|---|---|
| Promoting and protecting human rights, with attention to women and minority groups | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Monitoring the implementation and progress of peace efforts, agreements or processes. | 3 | 3 | 1 |
| Tracking or reporting incidents of violence or injustice | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| Monitoring and informing communities about legal or political developments. | 4 | 4 | 4 |
|
Table 4.1.c. Monitoring & Protection- SSD
(a)BEG (Bahr el Ghazal); EQ (Equatoria); UN (Upper Nile); All =
nationwide coverage across regions. Combined codes indicate multi-region
coverage.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
2 - Advocacy
By Org Type
| Activities | LNGO | NNGO | FO | HQ-INGO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negotiating or advocating for safe access to humanitarian aid, health services, or relief efforts in conflict-affected a | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Raising awareness, mobilising support, or participating in campaigns for peace-related causes. | 2 | 1 | 2 | |
| Speaking on behalf of marginalised groups | 2 | 1 | 2 | |
| Initiatives to promote transparency, accountability, or monitor corruption and abuse of authority | 4 | 4 | 1 | |
| Supporting constitutional processes and national dialogue | 5 | 5 | ||
| Assisting in organising elections or transitional political processes | 6 | |||
| Providing advice or support to security sector reform (e.g. police, army) | 7 | |||
|
Table 4.2.a. Advocacy- SSD
(a)LNGO (Local NGO); NNGO (National NGO); FO (Faith Organisation);
L-INGO (Local office of an International NGO); L-UN/IO (Local
UN/International Organisation office); HQ-INGO (INGO headquarters);
HQ-UN/IO (UN/International Organisation headquarters).
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Activity Type
| Activities | HDP+ | HP+ | D+ | P+ | H+ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negotiating or advocating for safe access to humanitarian aid, health services, or relief efforts in conflict-affected a | 4 | 4 | 2 | ||
| Raising awareness, mobilising support, or participating in campaigns for peace-related causes. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Initiatives to promote transparency, accountability, or monitor corruption and abuse of authority | 3 | 4 | |||
| Speaking on behalf of marginalised groups | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | |
| Supporting constitutional processes and national dialogue | 5 | 6 | |||
| Assisting in organising elections or transitional political processes | 7 | 2 | |||
| Providing advice or support to security sector reform (e.g. police, army) | 6 | 7 | |||
|
Table 4.2.b. Advocacy- SSD
(a)H = Humanitarian; D = Development; P = Peace; Oth = Other. Combined
labels (e.g., HDP+, DP+) indicate organisations working across multiple
sectors; ‘+’ denotes any other non-identified mandate.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Geography
| Activities | Bahr-el-Ghazal | Equatoria | Upper-Nile |
|---|---|---|---|
| Raising awareness, mobilising support, or participating in campaigns for peace-related causes. | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Speaking on behalf of marginalised groups | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Negotiating or advocating for safe access to humanitarian aid, health services, or relief efforts in conflict-affected a | 5 | 3 | 3 |
| Initiatives to promote transparency, accountability, or monitor corruption and abuse of authority | 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Supporting constitutional processes and national dialogue | 4 | 7 | 6 |
| Assisting in organising elections or transitional political processes | 7 | 4 | 4 |
| Providing advice or support to security sector reform (e.g. police, army) | 6 | 6 | 5 |
|
Table 4.2.c. Advocacy- SSD
(a)BEG (Bahr el Ghazal); EQ (Equatoria); UN (Upper Nile); All =
nationwide coverage across regions. Combined codes indicate multi-region
coverage.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
4 - Inclusion
By Org Type
| Activities | LNGO | NNGO | FO | HQ-INGO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Promoting mutual respect, trust, and collaboration between groups with a history of tension or conflict , including part | 1 | 2 | 5 | 1 |
| Supporting efforts to challenge harmful gender norms, roles, or expectations placed on men and women | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 |
| Creating opportunities for women, youth, or marginalised groups to participate in community life | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| Facilitating dialogue and interaction between people from different communities, backgrounds, or religions | 4 | 1 | 2 | 6 |
| Encouraging joint planning, dialogue, or shared visions for the future | 5 | 4 | 4 | |
| Supporting reintegration of former combatants into communities | 6 | 6 | 5 | |
|
Table 4.4.a. Inclusion- SSD
(a)LNGO (Local NGO); NNGO (National NGO); FO (Faith Organisation);
L-INGO (Local office of an International NGO); L-UN/IO (Local
UN/International Organisation office); HQ-INGO (INGO headquarters);
HQ-UN/IO (UN/International Organisation headquarters).
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Activity Type
| Activities | HDP+ | HP+ | D+ | P+ | H+ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Facilitating dialogue and interaction between people from different communities, backgrounds, or religions | 1 | 3 | 4 | 2 | |
| Creating opportunities for women, youth, or marginalised groups to participate in community life | 2 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 1 |
| Promoting mutual respect, trust, and collaboration between groups with a history of tension or conflict , including part | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 | |
| Supporting efforts to challenge harmful gender norms, roles, or expectations placed on men and women | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| Encouraging joint planning, dialogue, or shared visions for the future | 4 | 5 | 1 | 5 | |
| Supporting reintegration of former combatants into communities | 6 | ||||
|
Table 4.4.b. Inclusion- SSD
(a)H = Humanitarian; D = Development; P = Peace; Oth = Other. Combined
labels (e.g., HDP+, DP+) indicate organisations working across multiple
sectors; ‘+’ denotes any other non-identified mandate.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Geography
| Activities | Bahr-el-Ghazal | Equatoria | Upper-Nile |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facilitating dialogue and interaction between people from different communities, backgrounds, or religions | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Creating opportunities for women, youth, or marginalised groups to participate in community life | 4 | 1 | 4 |
| Promoting mutual respect, trust, and collaboration between groups with a history of tension or conflict , including part | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Supporting efforts to challenge harmful gender norms, roles, or expectations placed on men and women | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Encouraging joint planning, dialogue, or shared visions for the future | 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Supporting reintegration of former combatants into communities | 6 | 6 | 6 |
|
Table 4.4.c. Inclusion- SSD
(a)BEG (Bahr el Ghazal); EQ (Equatoria); UN (Upper Nile); All =
nationwide coverage across regions. Combined codes indicate multi-region
coverage.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
5 - Cohesion
By Org Type
| Activities | LNGO | NNGO | FO | HQ-INGO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organising joint community actions or events (e.g. cleanups, festivals, shared meals) | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| Building diverse staff teams that reflect the communities served | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Creating inclusive spaces for arts, sports, or cultural interaction | 1 | 5 | 3 | |
| Supporting shared economic or livelihood initiatives (e.g. cooperatives, joint markets) | 5 | 4 | 5 | |
| Creating or restoring inclusive and safe public spaces for community use | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
|
Table 4.5.a. Cohesion- SSD
(a)LNGO (Local NGO); NNGO (National NGO); FO (Faith Organisation);
L-INGO (Local office of an International NGO); L-UN/IO (Local
UN/International Organisation office); HQ-INGO (INGO headquarters);
HQ-UN/IO (UN/International Organisation headquarters).
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Activity Type
| Activities | HDP+ | HP+ | P+ | H+ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Creating inclusive spaces for arts, sports, or cultural interaction | 1 | 1 | 4 | |
| Supporting shared economic or livelihood initiatives (e.g. cooperatives, joint markets) | 5 | 2 | 5 | |
| Building diverse staff teams that reflect the communities served | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Organising joint community actions or events (e.g. cleanups, festivals, shared meals) | 4 | 3 | 1 | |
| Creating or restoring inclusive and safe public spaces for community use | 2 | 3 | 3 | |
|
Table 4.5.b. Cohesion- SSD
(a)H = Humanitarian; D = Development; P = Peace; Oth = Other. Combined
labels (e.g., HDP+, DP+) indicate organisations working across multiple
sectors; ‘+’ denotes any other non-identified mandate.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Geography
| Activities | Bahr-el-Ghazal | Equatoria | Upper-Nile |
|---|---|---|---|
| Building diverse staff teams that reflect the communities served | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Creating inclusive spaces for arts, sports, or cultural interaction | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Supporting shared economic or livelihood initiatives (e.g. cooperatives, joint markets) | 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Creating or restoring inclusive and safe public spaces for community use | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Organising joint community actions or events (e.g. cleanups, festivals, shared meals) | 3 | 4 | 4 |
|
Table 4.5.c. Cohesion- SSD
(a)BEG (Bahr el Ghazal); EQ (Equatoria); UN (Upper Nile); All =
nationwide coverage across regions. Combined codes indicate multi-region
coverage.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
6 - Conflict Resolution
By Org Type
| Activities | LNGO | NNGO | FO | HQ-INGO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supporting or creating spaces for community dialogue | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 |
| Mediating or directly facilitating the resolution of local disputes or tensions between individuals,families or groups | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Bringing communities and justice actors together to build understanding, offer guidance, and strengthen confidence in th | 3 | 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Supporting traditional conflict resolution systems (e.g. elders, popular courts) | 4 | 7 | 6 | 4 |
| Training or supporting local leaders to mediate conflicts | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| Creating new local structures for resolving conflict | 6 | 8 | 5 | |
| Supporting or establishing local community committees (e.g. for infrastructure, land use, natural resource management) | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| Supporting or creating mechanisms that address historical injustices or facilitating truth-telling and reconciliation pr | 8 | 2 | ||
|
Table 4.6.a. Conflict Resolution- SSD
(a)LNGO (Local NGO); NNGO (National NGO); FO (Faith Organisation);
L-INGO (Local office of an International NGO); L-UN/IO (Local
UN/International Organisation office); HQ-INGO (INGO headquarters);
HQ-UN/IO (UN/International Organisation headquarters).
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Activity Type
| Activities | HDP+ | HP+ | D+ | P+ | H+ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supporting or creating spaces for community dialogue | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Mediating or directly facilitating the resolution of local disputes or tensions between individuals,families or groups | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| Training or supporting local leaders to mediate conflicts | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | |
| Creating new local structures for resolving conflict | 5 | 7 | 5 | 6 | |
| Supporting traditional conflict resolution systems (e.g. elders, popular courts) | 7 | 6 | 4 | 5 | |
| Supporting or establishing local community committees (e.g. for infrastructure, land use, natural resource management) | 4 | 6 | 3 | ||
| Bringing communities and justice actors together to build understanding, offer guidance, and strengthen confidence in th | 5 | 3 | 8 | ||
| Supporting or creating mechanisms that address historical injustices or facilitating truth-telling and reconciliation pr | 8 | 3 | 1 | 7 | |
|
Table 4.6.b. Conflict Resolution- SSD
(a)H = Humanitarian; D = Development; P = Peace; Oth = Other. Combined
labels (e.g., HDP+, DP+) indicate organisations working across multiple
sectors; ‘+’ denotes any other non-identified mandate.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Geography
| Activities | Bahr-el-Ghazal | Equatoria | Upper-Nile |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supporting or creating spaces for community dialogue | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| Mediating or directly facilitating the resolution of local disputes or tensions between individuals,families or groups | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Training or supporting local leaders to mediate conflicts | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| Supporting traditional conflict resolution systems (e.g. elders, popular courts) | 6 | 6 | 5 |
| Creating new local structures for resolving conflict | 7 | 5 | 4 |
| Supporting or establishing local community committees (e.g. for infrastructure, land use, natural resource management) | 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Supporting or creating mechanisms that address historical injustices or facilitating truth-telling and reconciliation pr | 8 | 8 | 7 |
| Bringing communities and justice actors together to build understanding, offer guidance, and strengthen confidence in th | 4 | 7 | 7 |
|
Table 4.6.c. Conflict Resolution- SSD
(a)BEG (Bahr el Ghazal); EQ (Equatoria); UN (Upper Nile); All =
nationwide coverage across regions. Combined codes indicate multi-region
coverage.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
8 - Preventive
By Org Type
| Activities | LNGO | NNGO | FO | HQ-INGO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Engaging youth or vulnerable groups in leadership roles | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 |
| Considering and minimising any unintended effects of your organisation’s work (e.g. do-no-harm programming, feedback mec | 2 | 4 | 5 | 4 |
| Building community resilience to shocks or conflict | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| Promoting early warning, risk analysis, and responsive information services | 1 | 4 | 1 | |
| Engaging communities in climate adaptation or disaster risk reduction planning | 5 | 2 | 3 | |
|
Table 4.8.a. Prevention- SSD
(a)LNGO (Local NGO); NNGO (National NGO); FO (Faith Organisation);
L-INGO (Local office of an International NGO); L-UN/IO (Local
UN/International Organisation office); HQ-INGO (INGO headquarters);
HQ-UN/IO (UN/International Organisation headquarters).
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Activity Type
| Activities | HDP+ | HP+ | D+ | P+ | H+ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Promoting early warning, risk analysis, and responsive information services | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5 | |
| Engaging youth or vulnerable groups in leadership roles | 4 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 |
| Building community resilience to shocks or conflict | 2 | 2 | 4 | ||
| Engaging communities in climate adaptation or disaster risk reduction planning | 3 | 4 | 2 | ||
| Considering and minimising any unintended effects of your organisation’s work (e.g. do-no-harm programming, feedback mec | 5 | 3 | 1 | 3 | |
|
Table 4.8.b. Prevention- SSD
(a)H = Humanitarian; D = Development; P = Peace; Oth = Other. Combined
labels (e.g., HDP+, DP+) indicate organisations working across multiple
sectors; ‘+’ denotes any other non-identified mandate.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Geography
| Activities | Bahr-el-Ghazal | Equatoria | Upper-Nile |
|---|---|---|---|
| Promoting early warning, risk analysis, and responsive information services | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Engaging youth or vulnerable groups in leadership roles | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Engaging communities in climate adaptation or disaster risk reduction planning | 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Considering and minimising any unintended effects of your organisation’s work (e.g. do-no-harm programming, feedback mec | 4 | 5 | 3 |
| Building community resilience to shocks or conflict | 3 | 3 | 3 |
|
Table 4.8.c. Prevention- SSD
(a)BEG (Bahr el Ghazal); EQ (Equatoria); UN (Upper Nile); All =
nationwide coverage across regions. Combined codes indicate multi-region
coverage.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
Understanding peace
0 - Overall
South Sudan is the only case where not a single dimension of the twenty-two is free of dissent. Besides land and property security, the dimensions showing the greatest divergence are no degrading treatment, minority inclusion, and respect for diverse cultural identities. Additionally, the working rights dimension generated dissent at the aggregate level, and uniquely among the three countries surveyed, dissent also appears in "respectful interaction between people from different backgrounds" — a dimension that had no divergence in Mali or Syria.
The dimension concerning degrading treatment stands out both in the scale of dissent and in how sharply it was expressed. Organisations that rated it as unimportant did so at the lowest end of the scale, with no intermediate ratings — suggesting active rejection rather than mild hesitation. At the same time, a substantial number of neutral responses, equal in number to those expressing disagreement, brings the combined total of dissent and neutrality to roughly 35% of respondents. NNGOs drive most of this dissent (13% answer with low importance, 13% neutral) and organisations working in all regions respond in such way. This combination of intensity and uncertainty is analytically distinctive, and while the survey cannot determine its cause, though it offers a plausible starting point for further investigation. A parallel pattern appears in fair, safe, and decent working conditions, where the strongest rejection also clusters at the lowest point of the scale, with an equal number of neutral responses — bringing combined dissent and neutrality to roughly 20 per cent.
Minority inclusion and respect for diverse cultural identities show a structurally consistent pattern of divergence across organisation, mandates, and geographies. In both cases, divergence is concentrated in Equatoria and Bahr el Ghazal, while Upper Nile stands as the consistent exception where both dimensions are positively endorsed. This geographic pattern likely reflects the specific conflict histories of each region. Similarly, it is INGO headquarters, who consistently rate both dimensions at the top of the scale. The dimension regarding respectful interaction between people from different backgrounds follows a similar logic, with dissent concentrated among LNGOs, NNGOs, Equatoria and Bahr el Ghazal.
Overall, this divergence is mainly driven by eight organisations, roughly one in four surveyed, who rated an average of five dimensions as low, with some marking up to nine, and in extreme cases twenty-one dimensions as low. These patterns may suggest that for some organisations working in South Sudan, the survey’s framework does not fully capture how peace is understood locally. At the same time, the fact that a large share of respondents are national NGOs headquartered in Juba but operating across multiple regions likely shapes the results: they may be trying to balance a generalised, cross-context understanding of peace with the highly specific and sometimes conflicting realities in different parts of the country.
1 - No Violence
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
2 - No War
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
3 - Safety
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
4 - No Degrading Treatment
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
5 - Free Movement
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
6 - Respectful Interaction
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
7 - Access Services
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
8 - Property Security
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
9 - Justice
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
10 - Earn a Living
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
11 - Reciprocal Relationship
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
12 - Religious Freedom
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
13 - Gender Relations
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
14 - Representative Leadership
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
15 - Community Participation
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
16 - Visibility
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
17 - Diversity
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
18 - Work Rights
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
19 - Freedom of Expression
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
20 - Inclusion Minorities
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
21 - Emotional Well-being
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
22 - Healthy Environment
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
Syria
Understanding peace actions
0 - Overall
In Syria, one contextual feature shapes how the data should be read: with fourteen LNGOs out of twenty-one respondents, resulting in a sample more local in composition than in the other two countries. Bearing this in mind, the most analytically rich divergences are concentrated in social cohesion, prevention, and service-related activities. As in the other countries analysed, monitoring and protection and social engagement show comparatively higher consensus.
In prevention, each of the three organisation types holds an entirely different top priority: LNGOs rank youth engagement first, NNGOs rank early warning first, and HQ-INGOs rank community resilience first — three distinct understandings of what prevention means in the same context. Geographic data cuts directly against the type-based pattern: youth engagement ranks first in all six geographic configurations without exception, suggesting that locally embedded organisations in Syria share a remarkably consistent assessment of prevention priorities regardless of where they work.
Prevention is where the tension between analytical perspectives is sharpest. Examined by organisation type, each group holds an entirely different top priority. LNGOs place the strongest emphasis on engaging youth and vulnerable groups in leadership roles, positioning participation as their primary prevention strategy. NNGOs, by contrast, prioritise early warning and risk analysis, indicating a stronger focus on anticipatory and information-based mechanisms. HQ-INGOs rank building community resilience to shocks or conflict as their top priority, framing prevention in terms of systemic preparedness. A do-no-harm approach is relatively important for LNGOs but ranks lowest for NNGOs and remains secondary for HQ-INGOs. Finally, engagement in climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction is a lower priority for LNGOs, while it carries more weight for HQ-INGOs. Yet the geographic lens tells a different story: youth engagement ranks first across all six geographic configurations without exception, suggesting that on the ground, it functions as a shared entry point regardless of which type of organisation is implementing it.
Social cohesion reveals a different kind of divergence — one less about priorities and more about what organisations understand cohesion to be built through. LNGOs and HQ-INGOs converge in prioritising the building of diverse staff teams that reflect the communities they serve, suggesting that internal representation is seen as a key contribution to social cohesion. NNGOs, however, place the strongest emphasis on shared economic or livelihood initiatives, indicating an understanding of cohesion through cooperation and material interdependence. HQ-INGOs give comparatively higher priority to restoring inclusive and safe public spaces, while LNGOs rank cultural and arts-based spaces more prominently. Joint community actions occupy a middle position across all groups — broadly recognised as relevant, but not the defining priority for any single type.
For service-related activities in Syria, priorities vary both by location and by whether organisations operate in single or cross-regional settings. In Aleppo and in the Hasakah–Aleppo and Hasakah–Damascus combinations, meeting urgent or essential needs ranks first, suggesting a continued dominance of emergency assistance in these areas. In contrast, Hama and the Hasakah–Raqqa and Hasakah–Latakia groupings, those working in these areas, prioritise psychosocial and trauma-related support, indicating a stronger recovery-oriented focus. Livelihood support ranks highest in Hasakah–Latakia, suggesting a shift toward economic stabilisation in that configuration. Support for displaced populations tends to occupy a mid-level position across regions, even in areas where displacement remains acute. Strengthening trade and broader economic ties is generally ranked lowest in all cases.
Taken together, the pattern reflects a country moving at different speeds — some areas still in emergency mode, others beginning to orient toward recovery — and organisations appear to be responding to that unevenness rather than applying a uniform service logic.
1 - Monitoring & Protection
By Org Type
| Activities | LNGO | NNGO | HQ-INGO |
|---|---|---|---|
| Promoting and protecting human rights, with attention to women and minority groups | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Tracking or reporting incidents of violence or injustice | 3 | 4 | 2 |
| Monitoring and informing communities about legal or political developments. | 3 | 2 | 4 |
| Monitoring the implementation and progress of peace efforts, agreements or processes. | 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
Table 5.1.a. Monitoring & Protection - SYR
(a)LNGO (Local NGO); NNGO (National NGO); FO (Faith Organisation);
L-INGO (Local office of an International NGO); L-UN/IO (Local
UN/International Organisation office); HQ-INGO (INGO headquarters);
HQ-UN/IO (UN/International Organisation headquarters).
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Activity Type
| Activities | HDP+ | DP+ | HP+ | H+ | Oth |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Promoting and protecting human rights, with attention to women and minority groups | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Monitoring and informing communities about legal or political developments. | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||
| Monitoring the implementation and progress of peace efforts, agreements or processes. | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | |
| Tracking or reporting incidents of violence or injustice | 4 | 2 | 3 | ||
|
Table 5.1.b. Monitoring & Protection - SYR
(a)H = Humanitarian; D = Development; P = Peace; Oth = Other. Combined
labels (e.g., HDP+, DP+) indicate organisations working across multiple
sectors; ‘+’ denotes any other non-identified mandate.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Geography
| Activities | ALE | HMA | HSK+ALE | HSK+DAM | HSK+LTK | HSK+RQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Promoting and protecting human rights, with attention to women and minority groups | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Tracking or reporting incidents of violence or injustice | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | |
| Monitoring the implementation and progress of peace efforts, agreements or processes. | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | ||
| Monitoring and informing communities about legal or political developments. | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | ||
|
Table 5.1.c. Monitoring & Protection - SYR
(a)ALE (Aleppo); HMA (Hama); HSK (Hasakeh); DAM (Damascus); LTK
(Latakia); RQ (Raqqa); SUW (Suwayda). Combined codes indicate
multi-governorate coverage.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
2 - Advocacy
By Org Type
| Activities | LNGO | NNGO | HQ-INGO |
|---|---|---|---|
| Raising awareness, mobilising support, or participating in campaigns for peace-related causes. | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Speaking on behalf of marginalised groups | 3 | 3 | 4 |
| Negotiating or advocating for safe access to humanitarian aid, health services, or relief efforts in conflict-affected a | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Supporting constitutional processes and national dialogue | 4 | 5 | 5 |
| Providing advice or support to security sector reform (e.g. police, army) | 6 | 7 | |
| Assisting in organising elections or transitional political processes | 7 | 6 | 6 |
| Initiatives to promote transparency, accountability, or monitor corruption and abuse of authority | 5 | 3 | 1 |
|
Table 5.2.a. Advocacy - SYR
(a)LNGO (Local NGO); NNGO (National NGO); FO (Faith Organisation);
L-INGO (Local office of an International NGO); L-UN/IO (Local
UN/International Organisation office); HQ-INGO (INGO headquarters);
HQ-UN/IO (UN/International Organisation headquarters).
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Activity Type
| Activities | HDP+ | DP+ | HP+ | H+ | Oth |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raising awareness, mobilising support, or participating in campaigns for peace-related causes. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Speaking on behalf of marginalised groups | 2 | 3 | |||
| Negotiating or advocating for safe access to humanitarian aid, health services, or relief efforts in conflict-affected a | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Supporting constitutional processes and national dialogue | 4 | 3 | 5 | ||
| Initiatives to promote transparency, accountability, or monitor corruption and abuse of authority | 5 | 2 | 4 | ||
| Providing advice or support to security sector reform (e.g. police, army) | 7 | 6 | |||
| Assisting in organising elections or transitional political processes | 6 | 5 | 7 | ||
|
Table 5.2.b. Advocacy - SYR
(a)H = Humanitarian; D = Development; P = Peace; Oth = Other. Combined
labels (e.g., HDP+, DP+) indicate organisations working across multiple
sectors; ‘+’ denotes any other non-identified mandate.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Geography
| Activities | ALE | HMA | HSK+ALE | HSK+DAM | HSK+LTK | HSK+RQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raising awareness, mobilising support, or participating in campaigns for peace-related causes. | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Negotiating or advocating for safe access to humanitarian aid, health services, or relief efforts in conflict-affected a | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |
| Supporting constitutional processes and national dialogue | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Providing advice or support to security sector reform (e.g. police, army) | 6 | 5 | 5 | 6 | ||
| Speaking on behalf of marginalised groups | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Initiatives to promote transparency, accountability, or monitor corruption and abuse of authority | 5 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
| Assisting in organising elections or transitional political processes | 7 | 7 | 7 | |||
|
Table 5.2.c. Advocacy - SYR
(a)ALE (Aleppo); HMA (Hama); HSK (Hasakeh); DAM (Damascus); LTK
(Latakia); RQ (Raqqa); SUW (Suwayda). Combined codes indicate
multi-governorate coverage.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
4 - Inclusion
By Org Type
| Activities | LNGO | NNGO | HQ-INGO |
|---|---|---|---|
| Creating opportunities for women, youth, or marginalised groups to participate in community life | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Facilitating dialogue and interaction between people from different communities, backgrounds, or religions | 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Supporting efforts to challenge harmful gender norms, roles, or expectations placed on men and women | 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Promoting mutual respect, trust, and collaboration between groups with a history of tension or conflict , including part | 4 | 2 | 1 |
| Supporting reintegration of former combatants into communities | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Encouraging joint planning, dialogue, or shared visions for the future | 5 | 5 | 2 |
|
Table 5.4.a. Inclusion - SYR
(a)LNGO (Local NGO); NNGO (National NGO); FO (Faith Organisation);
L-INGO (Local office of an International NGO); L-UN/IO (Local
UN/International Organisation office); HQ-INGO (INGO headquarters);
HQ-UN/IO (UN/International Organisation headquarters).
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Activity Type
| Activities | HDP+ | DP+ | HP+ | H+ | Oth |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Creating opportunities for women, youth, or marginalised groups to participate in community life | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | |
| Facilitating dialogue and interaction between people from different communities, backgrounds, or religions | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| Promoting mutual respect, trust, and collaboration between groups with a history of tension or conflict , including part | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Supporting efforts to challenge harmful gender norms, roles, or expectations placed on men and women | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | |
| Supporting reintegration of former combatants into communities | 6 | 6 | |||
| Encouraging joint planning, dialogue, or shared visions for the future | 5 | 2 | 5 | 3 | |
|
Table 5.4.b. Inclusion - SYR
(a)H = Humanitarian; D = Development; P = Peace; Oth = Other. Combined
labels (e.g., HDP+, DP+) indicate organisations working across multiple
sectors; ‘+’ denotes any other non-identified mandate.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Geography
| Activities | ALE | HMA | HSK+ALE | HSK+DAM | HSK+LTK | HSK+RQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Facilitating dialogue and interaction between people from different communities, backgrounds, or religions | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Creating opportunities for women, youth, or marginalised groups to participate in community life | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Promoting mutual respect, trust, and collaboration between groups with a history of tension or conflict , including part | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | |
| Supporting efforts to challenge harmful gender norms, roles, or expectations placed on men and women | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Supporting reintegration of former combatants into communities | 6 | 6 | 5 | |||
| Encouraging joint planning, dialogue, or shared visions for the future | 5 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 3 | |
|
Table 5.4.c. Inclusion - SYR
(a)ALE (Aleppo); HMA (Hama); HSK (Hasakeh); DAM (Damascus); LTK
(Latakia); RQ (Raqqa); SUW (Suwayda). Combined codes indicate
multi-governorate coverage.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
5 - Cohesion
By Org Type
| Activities | LNGO | NNGO | HQ-INGO |
|---|---|---|---|
| Building diverse staff teams that reflect the communities served | 1 | 3 | 1 |
| Supporting shared economic or livelihood initiatives (e.g. cooperatives, joint markets) | 4 | 1 | 5 |
| Creating inclusive spaces for arts, sports, or cultural interaction | 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Creating or restoring inclusive and safe public spaces for community use | 5 | 3 | 2 |
| Organising joint community actions or events (e.g. cleanups, festivals, shared meals) | 3 | 2 | 3 |
|
Table 5.5.a. Cohesion - SYR
(a)LNGO (Local NGO); NNGO (National NGO); FO (Faith Organisation);
L-INGO (Local office of an International NGO); L-UN/IO (Local
UN/International Organisation office); HQ-INGO (INGO headquarters);
HQ-UN/IO (UN/International Organisation headquarters).
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Activity Type
| Activities | HDP+ | DP+ | HP+ | H+ | Oth |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supporting shared economic or livelihood initiatives (e.g. cooperatives, joint markets) | 3 | 5 | 4 | ||
| Organising joint community actions or events (e.g. cleanups, festivals, shared meals) | 1 | 3 | 3 | ||
| Creating inclusive spaces for arts, sports, or cultural interaction | 2 | 4 | 2 | ||
| Building diverse staff teams that reflect the communities served | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Creating or restoring inclusive and safe public spaces for community use | 5 | 1 | |||
|
Table 5.5.b. Cohesion - SYR
(a)H = Humanitarian; D = Development; P = Peace; Oth = Other. Combined
labels (e.g., HDP+, DP+) indicate organisations working across multiple
sectors; ‘+’ denotes any other non-identified mandate.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Geography
| Activities | ALE | HMA | HSK+ALE | HSK+DAM | HSK+LTK | HSK+RQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Building diverse staff teams that reflect the communities served | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Creating or restoring inclusive and safe public spaces for community use | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Supporting shared economic or livelihood initiatives (e.g. cooperatives, joint markets) | 5 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Organising joint community actions or events (e.g. cleanups, festivals, shared meals) | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2 |
| Creating inclusive spaces for arts, sports, or cultural interaction | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
|
Table 5.5.c. Cohesion - SYR
(a)ALE (Aleppo); HMA (Hama); HSK (Hasakeh); DAM (Damascus); LTK
(Latakia); RQ (Raqqa); SUW (Suwayda). Combined codes indicate
multi-governorate coverage.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
6 - Conflict Resolution
By Org Type
| Activities | LNGO | NNGO | HQ-INGO |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supporting or creating spaces for community dialogue | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Training or supporting local leaders to mediate conflicts | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Supporting or establishing local community committees (e.g. for infrastructure, land use, natural resource management) | 5 | 7 | |
| Mediating or directly facilitating the resolution of local disputes or tensions between individuals,families or groups | 4 | 5 | |
| Supporting or creating mechanisms that address historical injustices or facilitating truth-telling and reconciliation pr | 6 | 4 | |
| Bringing communities and justice actors together to build understanding, offer guidance, and strengthen confidence in th | 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Supporting traditional conflict resolution systems (e.g. elders, popular courts) | 7 | 3 | |
| Creating new local structures for resolving conflict | 8 | 3 | 6 |
|
Table 5.6.a. Conflict Resolution - SYR
(a)LNGO (Local NGO); NNGO (National NGO); FO (Faith Organisation);
L-INGO (Local office of an International NGO); L-UN/IO (Local
UN/International Organisation office); HQ-INGO (INGO headquarters);
HQ-UN/IO (UN/International Organisation headquarters).
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Activity Type
| Activities | HDP+ | DP+ | HP+ | H+ | Oth |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supporting or creating spaces for community dialogue | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Training or supporting local leaders to mediate conflicts | 2 | 3 | 2 | ||
| Supporting or establishing local community committees (e.g. for infrastructure, land use, natural resource management) | 5 | ||||
| Mediating or directly facilitating the resolution of local disputes or tensions between individuals,families or groups | 5 | 5 | 3 | ||
| Creating new local structures for resolving conflict | 4 | 6 | |||
| Supporting or creating mechanisms that address historical injustices or facilitating truth-telling and reconciliation pr | 7 | ||||
| Bringing communities and justice actors together to build understanding, offer guidance, and strengthen confidence in th | 3 | 2 | 2 | ||
| Supporting traditional conflict resolution systems (e.g. elders, popular courts) | 8 | 4 | |||
|
Table 5.6.b. Cohesion - SYR
(a)H = Humanitarian; D = Development; P = Peace; Oth = Other. Combined
labels (e.g., HDP+, DP+) indicate organisations working across multiple
sectors; ‘+’ denotes any other non-identified mandate.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Geography
| Activities | ALE | HMA | HSK+ALE | HSK+DAM | HSK+LTK | HSK+RQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supporting or creating spaces for community dialogue | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Training or supporting local leaders to mediate conflicts | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 2 |
| Supporting or establishing local community committees (e.g. for infrastructure, land use, natural resource management) | 4 | 4 | 4 | |||
| Supporting or creating mechanisms that address historical injustices or facilitating truth-telling and reconciliation pr | 5 | 5 | 4 | |||
| Bringing communities and justice actors together to build understanding, offer guidance, and strengthen confidence in th | 3 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 3 |
| Mediating or directly facilitating the resolution of local disputes or tensions between individuals,families or groups | 6 | 6 | 4 | 2 | ||
| Creating new local structures for resolving conflict | 7 | 7 | 3 | 7 | ||
| Supporting traditional conflict resolution systems (e.g. elders, popular courts) | 3 | |||||
|
Table 5.6.c. Cohesion - SYR
(a)ALE (Aleppo); HMA (Hama); HSK (Hasakeh); DAM (Damascus); LTK
(Latakia); RQ (Raqqa); SUW (Suwayda). Combined codes indicate
multi-governorate coverage.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
8 - Preventive
By Org Type
| Activities | LNGO | NNGO | HQ-INGO |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engaging youth or vulnerable groups in leadership roles | 1 | 2 | 5 |
| Promoting early warning, risk analysis, and responsive information services | 4 | 1 | 3 |
| Building community resilience to shocks or conflict | 3 | 3 | 1 |
| Considering and minimising any unintended effects of your organisation’s work (e.g. do-no-harm programming, feedback mec | 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Engaging communities in climate adaptation or disaster risk reduction planning | 5 | 3 | 2 |
|
Table 5.8.a. Conflict Resolution - SYR
(a)LNGO (Local NGO); NNGO (National NGO); FO (Faith Organisation);
L-INGO (Local office of an International NGO); L-UN/IO (Local
UN/International Organisation office); HQ-INGO (INGO headquarters);
HQ-UN/IO (UN/International Organisation headquarters).
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Activity Type
| Activities | HDP+ | DP+ | HP+ | H+ | Oth |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Promoting early warning, risk analysis, and responsive information services | 2 | 2 | |||
| Engaging youth or vulnerable groups in leadership roles | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Considering and minimising any unintended effects of your organisation’s work (e.g. do-no-harm programming, feedback mec | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | |
| Building community resilience to shocks or conflict | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | |
| Engaging communities in climate adaptation or disaster risk reduction planning | 5 | 2 | |||
|
Table 5.8.b. Conflict Resolution - SYR
(a)H = Humanitarian; D = Development; P = Peace; Oth = Other. Combined
labels (e.g., HDP+, DP+) indicate organisations working across multiple
sectors; ‘+’ denotes any other non-identified mandate.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
By Geography
| Activities | ALE | HMA | HSK+ALE | HSK+DAM | HSK+LTK | HSK+RQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Engaging youth or vulnerable groups in leadership roles | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Promoting early warning, risk analysis, and responsive information services | 3 | 4 | 2 | 4 | ||
| Building community resilience to shocks or conflict | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| Considering and minimising any unintended effects of your organisation’s work (e.g. do-no-harm programming, feedback mec | 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 |
| Engaging communities in climate adaptation or disaster risk reduction planning | 5 | 5 | 5 | |||
|
Table 5.8.c. Conflict Resolution - SYR
(a)ALE (Aleppo); HMA (Hama); HSK (Hasakeh); DAM (Damascus); LTK
(Latakia); RQ (Raqqa); SUW (Suwayda). Combined codes indicate
multi-governorate coverage.
(b)Highlighted cells indicate ranks 1 to 3 (top three positions) within
each column.
Source: bicc/Bolaños Suárez, R.
|
Understanding peace
0 - Overall
On peace understandings, Syria presents the most limited divergence of the three countries. In none of the dimensions did more than two organisations express disagreement — roughly 10% — and the pockets of dissent that do appear — on the absence of war among organisations operating both across Hasakah and Raqqa, on degrading treatment among those with activities spanning Hasakah and Aleppo, and on minority inclusion among organisations active in Aleppo — are geographically concentrated and involve LNGOs and, surprisingly, local branches of international organisations, with one NNGO also present in the minority inclusion case.
These patterns likely reflect context-specific assessments shaped by local operational realities, not deeper divergence on what peace entails. Quantitatively speaking, about one in four organisations surveyed contributed to this divergence. Among them, most rated fewer than three dimensions as low, while a few outliers assessed up to nine dimensions as low.
A subtler pattern worth noting is the role of neutrality. While active dissent is rare, four dimensions attract notable non-commitment: visibility in the eyes of local institutions, work rights, earn a living, and free movement each register 10 per cent or more neutral responses. Organisations are not rejecting these dimensions, but they are not fully endorsing them either. This pattern may reflect, as in Mali, uncertainty about their applicability in a context of deep institutional disruption and ongoing recovery.
The most significant finding in Syria's peace understandings data is therefore not dissent but rather its counterpart. Nine dimensions register zero dissent across all three analytical cuts. Among these, four — representative leadership, justice, security over land and property, and respectful interaction — are endorsed without a single neutral response either, meaning every organisation in every configuration rates them as important or very important.
Representative leadership — the idea that leadership should reflect and serve community interests — was endorsed almost unanimously, without hesitations, across all organisation types, mandates, and geographic areas, making it the single most agreed-upon dimension in the entire Syrian subset. In a context where the legitimacy of governing authority has been catastrophically contested for over a decade, and where the political transition was ongoing at the time of the survey, this convergence is not self-evident. It suggests that whatever disagreements exist on other dimensions, organisations working in Syria share a strong and unusually consistent conviction about the foundational importance of accountable and representative governance as a precondition for peace.
1 - No Violence
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
2 - No War
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
3 - Safety
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
4 - No Degrading Treatment
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
5 - Free Movement
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
6 - Respectful Interaction
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
7 - Access Services
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
8 - Property Security
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
9 - Justice
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
10 - Earn a Living
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
11 - Reciprocal Relationship
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
12 - Religious Freedom
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
13 - Gender Relations
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
14 - Representative Leadership
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
15 - Community Participation
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
16 - Visibility
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
17 - Diversity
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
18 - Work Rights
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
19 - Freedom of Expression
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
20 - Inclusion Minorities
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
21 - Emotional Well-being
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
22 - Healthy Environment
By Org Type
By Activity Type
By Geography
Sample Overview
Mali
Geography
Activity
Organisation
South Sudan
Geography
Activity
Organisation
Syria
Geography
Activity
Organisation
Survey Design
Background
Findings from our previous project — How can the HDP Nexus Succeed? — established that organisations working across the humanitarian, development, and peace spectrum hold meaningfully different understandings of what peace means. These differences extend beyond formal definitions to the question of practice: for many organisations, it remains unclear how abstract conceptions of peace translate into the concrete work they carry out day to day (Müller-Koné et al., 2024).
However, the existing evidence base on these divergences has been built predominantly from the perspective of internationally operating actors. Locally and nationally embedded organisations — those working outside the international sphere, without the institutional resources to maintain a digital presence or contribute to the published record — remained largely absent from this picture. Their understandings of peace, and the ways in which they act upon it, have not been systematically documented. An online survey designed to reach a broad and diverse set of actors was therefore the most appropriate instrument for addressing this gap across three different conflict contexts.
Aim
Findings from our previous project — How can the HDP Nexus Succeed? — established that organisations working across the humanitarian, development, and peace spectrum hold meaningfully different understandings of what peace means. These differences extend beyond formal definitions to the question of practice: for many organisations, it remains unclear how abstract conceptions of peace translate into the concrete work they carry out day to day (Müller-Koné et al., 2024).
However, the existing evidence base on these divergences has been built predominantly from the perspective of internationally operating actors. Locally and nationally embedded organisations — those working outside the international sphere, without the institutional resources to maintain a digital presence or contribute to the published record — remained largely absent from this picture. Their understandings of peace, and the ways in which they act upon it, have not been systematically documented. An online survey designed to reach a broad and diverse set of actors was therefore the most appropriate instrument for addressing this gap across three different conflict contexts.
Approach
The survey is primarily quantitative in nature. While we acknowledge that the concept of peace its inherently qualitative, we aim to capture measurable patterns in how local organisations understand and relate to it. To do so, we use structured questions that allow us to approximate these understandings through a range of conceptual dimensions of peace. These dimensions are informed by academic literature, grey literature from aid organisations, and our previous research on perceptions of peace in communities in Iraq, Mali, and South Sudan — as detailed in the dedicated bicc Spotlight Reports (Kemmerling, 2024; Haidara, 2024; Meininghaus, 2024). The following section outlines these dimensions in detail and explains how they were developed and categorised for the purposes of the survey.
Theoretical framework
There is no standard or universally accepted definition of peace; rather, it has been the subject of long-standing debate. As any other abstract concept, which meaning varies with time and place, we argue that peace can only be approximated by “empirical indicators" (Zeller & Carmines, 1980). In other words, owing to its inherent complexity and conceptual richness, peace can be operationalised and measured in multiple ways. This approximation-based approach may be limited, but it nevertheless provides a practical and suitable foundation for survey-based research.
In this regard, we draw on the work of Kurtenbach (2021), who conceptualises peace as resting on three interrelated pillars: the absence of war and direct violence (ensuring individuals’ physical integrity), the capacity to manage and resolve conflicts constructively, and the protection and fulfilment of individual and collective human rights. The author believes that this conceptualisation offers several advantages: it does not assume a linear or sequential pathway to achieving peace; it recognises that fundamental rights are not tied to any specific political system; and it is broad enough to account for multiple “social cleavages”, making it adaptable across diverse contexts.
Building on this framework, we adapt, reconceptualise, and expand it to define three analytical dimensions that guide our survey:
Physical Integrity: This refers to the absence of direct violence and aligns with the concept of negative peace. It is closely associated with the fulfilment of Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which affirm the right to life, liberty, and security of person, and equality in dignity and rights.
Fundamental Individual and Collective Rights: This dimension reflects the absence of structural violence and corresponds to positive peace, as originally framed by Galtung (1969). It encompasses a broad range of rights enshrined in the UDHR, as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It also draws from the understandings of peace that emerged from our previous research in Iraq, Mali, and South Sudan.
Constructive Conflict Transformation: This captures the concept of peace as actions that organisations engage in to promote or sustain peace in the short, medium, or long term (Inter-Agency Standing Committee, 2020). Our categorisation of these actions draws on the frameworks developed by Paffenholz and Spurk (2009), Paffenholz (2009), Van Leeuwen (2019), Jankowitz (2021), and (Brown et al., 2024) as well as our own analysis of peace work reported by local partners in our former project How can the HDP Nexus Succeed?.
Structure of the survey
Considering the aims of our survey and the theoretical framework, the survey is structured in three main sections:
Understanding Peace Actions. In this section we aimed to grasp which peace actions organisations are engaging with, as delineated in goal (b). We broadly classify them as: 1) monitoring and protection, 2) advocacy, 3) social engagement, 4) inclusion, 5) social cohesion, 6) conflict resolution, 7) service-related, and 8) prevention. Within each category, participants were first asked to select the activities they considered relevant to their work and then to rank them in order of priority. The categories and their constituent activities were developed drawing on the experience of our partners, documents on the peace component of the HDP Nexus (see IASC, 2020; Land et al., 2022), and academic literature (see Payne, 2020). Where gaps remained, we incorporated references from the UDHR.
Understanding of Peace. In this section, our goal is to approximate organisations’ notions of peace by assessing how important different dimensions are to their understanding, as specified in goal (a). Responses were collected on a five-point Likert scale ranging from not important to very important. We broadly categorised these dimensions as positive and negative peace. The specific items draw directly from the UDHR and from conceptions of peace reported by individuals interviewed in our previous project. We also indirectly consider the distinction between “big P” peace in the HDP Nexus framework —which addresses structural aspects that typically go beyond the local level— and “small p” peace, which refers to specific, localised activities aimed at building peace. This distinction matters for interpretation: it allows us to recognise that not all dimensions of peace are equally within reach for all organisations, and that divergence in ratings may reflect differences in scope as much as differences in values.
Organisation Information. In order to fulfil our objective of comparing conceptions of peace across different types of organisations, this section gathers basic information about respondents — including organisation type, mandate, and geographic scope of work. This information enabled us to aggregate and disaggregate responses in the subsequent analysis, helping us fulfil goal (c).
It is important to note that the two substantive sections — peace actions and peace understandings — were kept deliberately separate, and respondents could not return to earlier questions. The connection between them is therefore exclusively analytical: it was explored after data collection, not prompted during the survey itself. This design choice was intended to prevent respondents from adjusting their answers in one section to align with what they had said in the other. A final validation section was also included to help assess the reliability of the responses provided.
The full questionnaire is available as an Annex.
Guiding principles
All questions and sections in the survey were designed according to the following guiding principles:
Accessible language. Simple and accessible language was used throughout to ensure that questions could be understood by respondents across a wide range of organisational and geographic contexts and could be reliably translated. The survey was written originally in English and translated into French and Arabic. While each question is grounded in our theoretical framework, technical and academic terminology was deliberately avoided.
Minimising bias. Question phrasing was carefully designed to reduce two specific sources of bias:
Acquiescence bias. The systematic tendency of respondents to endorse items irrespective of their content was addressed through balanced phrasing (Bogner & Landrock, 2016). Importance questions were framed symmetrically, for example as "how important or not important," so that neither end of the scale was linguistically privileged and agreement was not implied by the question structure itself.
Priming bias. Refers to the effect by which exposure to earlier items influences the interpretation and response to subsequent ones (Hjortskov, 2017) and was addressed through deliberate section sequencing. Peace actions were assessed before peace understandings. This order was chosen because asking for behavioural reports prior to attitudinal ones reduces the risk that respondents construct or adjust their reported practices to be consistent with values they have already articulated. The reverse sequence is more likely to activate consistency motivations that distort responses in the behavioural section (Brace, 2004). Keeping the two sections distinct and in this sequence was therefore intended to preserve the independence of responses across them.
Sample
The target population for this survey comprises local and national NGOs, local chapters field offices and headquarters of international NGOs, international organisations and UN agencies, faith-based organisations, and other grassroots civil society actors. The primary inclusion criterion was that the organisation — regardless of its main mandate or sector — was plausibly engaged in some form of peacebuilding activity.
Organisations were identified through a two-stage identification process. First, commissioned mappings were carried out in each of the three countries to produce lists of potentially eligible organisations. Second, direct project partners were consulted to supplement these lists with additional organisations known to be active in the relevant space but not captured through the formal mapping — and were themselves also invited to participate. Organisations were then contacted by email with a formal invitation to participate. Where no response was received, follow-up reminders were sent, including through instant messaging platforms where these were the established communication channel in the local context.
Because access to local organisations in some settings depends on relationship-building as much as on formal outreach, the recruitment process was extended rather than simultaneous. Establishing credibility, clarifying the purpose of the research, and building sufficient trust to secure participation required sustained engagement over approximately three months, spanning the last quarter of 2025. Throughout this process, all communications made explicit that responses were sought at the organisational level: participants were asked to answer on behalf of their organisation, not as individuals.
Finally, it is worth noting that obtaining a sample in Syria presented considerably greater challenges than in the other two countries. This resulted in a smaller sample size that should be taken into account when reading the findings from that country.
Limitations
There are six main challenges and limitations associated with this survey, outlined as follows:
Lack of open-text questions. We deliberately chose not to include open-text questions, as analysing qualitative responses in three languages—especially with the use of context-specific terminology—would be highly time-consuming and resource-intensive. We acknowledge that this limited respondents’ ability to define peace in their own words, confining them instead to the conceptual framework we pre-established. Given the time constraints and available capacities, we considered this approach the most appropriate.
Agency Problem. We cannot be certain that the individual completing the survey truly reflected the organisation’s perspective, as their responses may be shaped by their personal views, role within the organisation, or their ability to recall past events (Hughes & Preski, 1997; Ernst, 2003). Responses may also be shaped by the profile of the informant, for example, if respondents are disproportionately male or from privileged backgrounds, this may introduce bias, even when they speak on behalf of their organisation.
Online survey format challenge. Data collection may be affected by respondents’ limited familiarity with online survey formats (Evans & Mathur, 2018).
Survey fatigue. Defined as the feeling of being overwhelmed by the frequent invitations to participate in surveys—which is particularly relevant for NGOs in our sample, as they might be regularly approached for input (Ghafourifard, 2024).
Sampling limitations. Given that initial outreach relied on commissioned lists and partner referrals, we cannot guarantee that the local actors who ultimately received and completed the survey are fully independent of international norms and practices. Organisations already familiar with or indirectly aligned to international frameworks may be overrepresented, which could affect the extent to which the sample captures perspectives genuinely outside that sphere (Jankowitz, 2021).
Differential contextual grounding. Mali and South Sudan were the focus of our previous project, which helped informed the development of the survey instrument — its categories, dimensions, and framings. Syria was not part of that prior work. As a result, some of the concepts and practices embedded in the survey may resonate less fully with the Syrian context, and findings from that country should be read with the awareness that the framework was not developed with the same degree of grounding in its specific conflict dynamics.
Implementation
The survey was deployed in three languages — English, French, and Arabic — selected to reflect the linguistic diversity of the regions and organisations we aimed to reach. Translation followed a conceptual rather than strictly literal approach, carried out by individuals with direct contextual knowledge, to ensure that the underlying meanings and intentions of each question were preserved across languages (Behr & Scholz, 2011).
Prior to full rollout, the survey was piloted with selected partner organisations to assess its clarity, usability, and overall structure. Pilot testing helped identify issues related to question formulation, layout, and technical functionality. Organisations that participated in the pilot were not invited to complete the final survey, to avoid duplication of responses. In line with Erinosho (2020), who stresses that surveys should avoid causing trauma, pain, or emotional distress, any questions identified during piloting as potentially sensitive were rephrased or removed accordingly.
The survey was conducted using LimeSurvey, an open-source platform that supports flexible design and multilingual functionality. The invitation and introductory section clearly explained the purpose of the instrument and the importance of each organisation's participation, in recognition that respondent engagement affects the quality of responses (Callegaro et al., 2015). Informed consent was obtained digitally at the start of the survey through an explicit consent form that participants were required to complete before proceeding. This form outlined the voluntary nature of participation, the right to withdraw at any time without consequence, and the conditions under which data would be used. Participants were also informed that they could stop or skip questions at any point.
Validation, analysis and results
All survey data were securely stored by the platform provider and by bicc, with access restricted to the core research team. Prior to analysis, submissions that did not include at least one key identifier — such as country of operation or organisation type — were excluded from the dataset. In line with good scientific practice, any responses that could directly identify a specific organisation were removed prior to publication to guarantee anonymity.
All data analysis was conducted in R code, which enables both robust statistical analysis and data visualisation. In the interest of full transparency and replicability, coding schemes and data transformations undertaken during the analysis are made available. Further methodological detail is provided in the dedicated methodology section of this report.
Methodology
This section describes the analytical approaches used to examine participants' peace actions and peace understandings. Both sections of the survey presented methodological challenges — ranking data that needed to be made comparable across respondents with different selections, and rating data that clustered so heavily at the top of the scale that standard analysis yielded little insight. The methods described below reflect the choices we made to work around these constraints and extract what we considered to be the most reliable and meaningful patterns from the data.
Readers interested in the full technical detail, or in reproducing the analysis, are encouraged to consult this section alongside the R code provided; what follows is intended to give enough background to read and evaluate the findings with confidence, without requiring familiarity with the underlying quantitative methods.
Peace actions
To understand which peace actions organisations prioritise, we asked participants to review a set of activities within each of eight thematic categories — monitoring and protection, advocacy, social engagement, inclusion, social cohesion, conflict resolution, service-related activities, and prevention. For each category, participants first selected the activities they considered relevant to their work and then ranked those activities in order of priority.
Because not everyone ranked the same number of activities, we needed a way to produce comparable results across respondents. We did this by calculating a weighted average rank for each activity — a single number that synthesises where, on average, organisations placed that activity relative to the others. The lower the number, the higher the priority. This gives us a summary ranking that represents the collective priorities of all organisations in a given country or group. In other words, this aggregation method considers not only how often an activity is considered important but also the degree of importance assigned to it. For example, an activity consistently ranked second by many participants can score higher than an activity ranked first by only a few, giving a fairer representation of overall priority (Saari, 1985; OECD, 2008; Gage, 2013).
To identify where the most meaningful differences lie — across and within countries, organisation types, or mandates — we used two complementary measures. The first is simply the average distance between rankings: for each pair of respondents, we looked at how far apart they placed each activity and averaged those distances across all respondents. A large average distance means organisations disagree significantly on where an activity belongs; a small distance means they tend to agree (Diaconis & Graham, 1977). The second measure is Kendall's Tau, a statistical measure that captures not just how far apart rankings are, but whether organisations agree on the relative order of activities — that is, whether they tend to put the same things first, second, and third, even if they disagree on how important the differences are. A Tau value of +1 means perfect agreement in ordering; 0 means no shared ordering at all; −1 means organisations systematically place activities in the opposite order from one another (Abdi, 2007).
These two measures together allow us to distinguish between four types of situations, which are displayed in a quadrant graph accompanying the results. When both distance and Tau point towards agreement, we have strong consensus — organisations not only rank activities similarly but also agree on their relative order. When rankings are close but Tau is low, relative priorities are inconsistent — organisations end up with similar scores but for different reasons. When Tau is high, but distances are large, there is structured disagreement — organisations agree on what comes first and last but differ in what is in the middle. When both measures point towards disagreement, organisations diverge both in scores and in ordering. Reading the quadrant graph alongside the rankings helps identify not just what the differences are, but what kind of differences they are. For the reader, this graph helps to grasp which actions are seen as more important and which are more contested, without requiring to interpret complex statistical formulas.
Peace understandings
To explore how organisations understand peace, we asked participants to rate the importance of twenty-two dimensions of peace for their concept of what peace means. These dimensions were drawn from frameworks of positive and negative peace, human rights principles, and insights from our previous research. Each was presented as a statement — for example, "People have security over their land and property" — and participants rated it on a Likert scale from not important (1) to very important (5).
In practice, despite our efforts to minimise bias — as described in the survey design section —–, responses clustered heavily at the top of the scale, with most organisations rating most dimensions as important or very important. This ceiling effect limits what straightforward analysis of the ratings can tell us, since there is little variation to work with. To extract meaningful signal from the data, we focused instead on the rare cases where organisations gave low ratings — specifically, ratings of 1 or 2 out of 5. We treat these as a divergence indicator: not proof that an organisation considered a dimension irrelevant, but a signal that something about that dimension did not resonate — whether because it falls outside the organisation's mandate, because it does not map onto local realities, or because the organisation holds a genuinely different view of what peace requires. We express this divergence indicator either as a percentage of the total country sample or as an absolute number, depending on what makes the comparison most informative. This approach allowed us to identify patterns in which dimensions generated friction, which types of organisations diverged, and whether divergence was geographically concentrated or spread across contexts.
Linking peace actions to peace understandings
To examine whether the actions organisations prioritise reflect the dimensions of peace they consider important, we connected the two sections of the survey through a structured linking procedure. For each of the twenty-two understanding dimensions, we identified the action activities that could plausibly contribute to it in practice. These links were established drawing on three sources: the conceptual frameworks and literature consulted during the survey design phase, the empirical insights from our previous project on HDP Nexus actors, and the specific wording of each survey item. In this respect, we acknowledge that this linking procedure involves a degree of subjective analytical judgement and that scholars or practitioners may contest individual connections or draw them differently. The full linking table is provided in the annex precisely to make these choices transparent and open to scrutiny.
Once the links were in place, we looked at how each linked activity was ranked by organisations in Mali, South Sudan, and Syria. To make these rankings comparable — since different action categories contain different numbers of activities — we converted them into a single operational priority score between zero and a hundred, where higher values mean the activity was ranked closer to the top of its category (OECD, 2008). For each understanding dimension, we averaged these scores across all linked activities to get an overall sense of how well that dimension is covered by what organisations do. We then read this coverage estimate alongside the dissent indicator from the understanding section — the share of organisations that rated a dimension as unimportant. This combination allowed us to identify where organisations act in line with what they say peace means, and where meaningful gaps exist between the two.
Artificial Intelligence use in the analytical process
The analytical and writing process for this report involved iterative use of large language models as a form of assisted peer review. Earlier drafts of results sections and analytical narratives were submitted to the model, which identified gaps in the narrative, pointed to apparent contradictions between claims and the underlying data, suggested analytical framings, and raised questions that prompted further investigation. This was a reiterative process: outputs were revised, resubmitted, and refined across multiple exchanges until the final version presented here. All substantive findings, however, were independently verified using R code, and all analytical and interpretive decisions remained with the researcher. The models' role were closer to that of knowledgeable interlocutors than analytical instruments. They helped strengthen the work by asking the right questions, not by answering them.
Sources
Sources in this section have been either directly referenced in the report or consulted for background and context.
Methodology and analysis
Abdi, H. (2007). The Kendall rank correlation coefficient. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics (pp. 508–510). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Retrieved from https://personal.utdallas.edu/~herve/Abdi-KendallCorrelation2007-pretty.pdf
Beaumais, L. (2023). Do Humanitarian Workers Really Trust Numbers? An Assessment of the Use of Quantitative Data in the Humanitarian Field. Journal of Humanitarian Affairs, 5(1), 24-36. Retrieved Mar 22, 2026, from https://doi.org/10.7227/JHA.100
Diaconis, P., & Graham, R. L. (1977). Spearman's footrule as a measure of disarray. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 39(2), 262-268.
Gage, A. (2013). Lecture Notes: Section 1-2. Mathematics 1030 (Mathematics Beyond Numbers), Fall 2013. University of Connecticut. Retrieved from https://www2.math.uconn.edu/~gageonea/math1030f13/1-2_notes.pdf
Haidara, B. (2024). Spotlight on humanitarian–development–peace nexus implementation in Mali: Civil–military cooperation from a decolonial perspective. Bonn International Centre for Conflict Studies.
Hellmüller, S. (2014). International and local actors in peacebuilding: why don’t they cooperate? swisspeace, https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/178891/WP_4_2014.pdf
Kemmerling, B. (2024). Spotlight on humanitarian–development–peace nexus implementation in South Sudan: Localisation from a decolonial perspective. Bonn International Centre for Conflict Studies .
International Alert. (2024). Trust, legitimacy, capacity and power: Practical approaches to localisation in peacebuilding. https://www.international-alert.org/publications/research-localisation-peacebuilding/
Lee, Z., & Woodliffe, L. (2010). Donor Misreporting: Conceptualizing Social Desirability Bias in Giving Surveys. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21(4), 569–587. doi:10.1007/s11266-010-9153-5
Meininghaus, E. (2024). Spotlight on humanitarian–development–peace nexus implementation in Iraq: Challenges to peace activities from a decolonial perspective. Bonn International Centre for Conflict Studies.
Müller-Koné, M., Meininghaus, E., Kemmerling, B., & Haidara, B. (2024). How can the HDP Nexus Work from the Bottom Up?: A Discussion Paper on Implementation Challenges from a Decolonial Perspective. Insights from Iraq, Mali and South Sudan (Bicc Report). bicc.
Ödén, B., & Wohlgemuth, L. (2017). Local peacebuilding – Challenges and opportunities for the local turn of peacebuilding (pp. 29–45). Expert Group for Aid Studies (EBA).
OECD/JRC (2008). Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. OECD Publishing.
Richmond, O. P., & Mac Ginty, R. (Eds.). (2020). Local legitimacy and international peacebuilding: The importance of people-centred approaches (Foreword, pp. i–xxiv; Introduction, pp. 1–28). Edinburgh University Press. https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/media/resources/9781474466288_Local_Legitimacy_and_International_Peacebuilding_-_Foreword_and_Introduction.pdf
Saari, Donald G. (1985) : The Optimal Ranking Method is the Borda Count, Discussion Paper, No. 638, Northwestern University, Kellogg School of Management, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science, Evanston, IL
Yıldırım-Schlüsing, C., Müller-Koné, M., Kemmerling, B., Suárez, R. B., Haidara, B., Meininghaus, E., Al-Khadhra, R., Brown, S., Koné, A., & Rutaro, J. (2025). Three Ways to Support Locally-led Peace in the HDP Nexus. bicc.
Survey design
Afumbom, M. P. (2023). Effectiveness of Peace Building from Below: Activities of local NGOs During Armed Conflict in Cameroon. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 7(12), 1389–1397. https://rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/articles/effectiveness-of-peace-building-from-below-activities-of-local-ngos-during-armed-conflict-in-cameroon/
ACAPS. (2016). Questionnaire design: How to design a questionnaire for needs assessments in humanitarian emergencies. ReliefWeb. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/questionnaire-design-how-design-questionnaire-needs-assessments-humanitarian
Behr, D., & Scholz, E. (2011). Questionnaire translation in cross-national survey research: on the types and valueof annotations. Methoden, Daten, Analysen (mda), 5(2), 157-179. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168ssoar-282120
Bogner, K., & Landrock, U. (2016). Response Biases in Standardised Surveys. GESIS Survey Guidelines.Mannheim, Germany: GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. doi: 10.15465/gesis-sg_en_016
Brace, I. (2004). Questionnaire design: How to plan, structure and write survey material for effective market research. Kogan Page Publishers. https://civilenglineering.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/questionnaire-design-how-to-plan-structure-write.pdf
Brown, S., Mena, R., & Brown, S. (2024). The peace dilemma in the triple nexus: challenges and opportunities for the humanitarian–development–peace approach. Development in Practice, 34(5), 568–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2024.2334774
Callegaro, M., Manfreda, K., & Vehovar, V. (2015). Web Survey Methodology. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529799651
Cohen, N., & Arieli, T. (2011). Field research in conflict environments: Methodological challenges and snowball sampling. Journal of Peace Research, 48(4), 423–435. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0022343311405698?casa_token=mskDSBWaEUkAAAAA:f1rGgQON-AJGmP1CIBuSLRRhm-hAqujg0HA2maXG2UxhZLTsI8Ks26eqHjlus_wiSF0ZfvIVM6zODw
Dawson, C. (2019). A-Z of Digital Research Methods (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351044677
De Leeuw, E. D., Hox, J., & Dillman, D. (2012). International Handbook of Survey Methodology. Routledge.
Emma Heywood, Ivey, B., & Meuter, S. (2024). Reaching hard-to-reach communities: using WhatsApp to give conflict-affected audiences a voice. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 27(1), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2022.2117451
Erinosho, O. (2020). Quantitative research methods in field-based peacebuilding. In Researching Peacebuilding in Africa (pp. 110–127). Routledge.
Ernst, H. (2003). Causes and effects of a single informant bias in empirical innovation research. Wissenschaftliche Hochschule für Unternehmensführung (WHU) Otto-Beisheim-Hochschule.
Evans, J. R., & Mathur, A. (2018). The value of online surveys: A look back and a look ahead. Internet Research, 28(4), 854–887. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/intr-03-2018-0089/full/pdf
Firchow, P., & Mac Ginty, R. (2020). Including hard-to-access populations using mobile phone surveys and participatory indicators. Sociological Methods & Research, 49(1), 133–160.
Fowler, F. J. (2014). Survey research methods (5th ed.). Sage Publications
Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of peace research, 6(3), 167-191.
Ghafourifard, M. (2024). Survey Fatigue in Questionnaire Based Research: The Issues and Solutions. Journal of Caring Sciences, 13(4), 214–215. https://doi.org/10.34172/jcs.33287
Heckathorn, D. D., & Cameron, C. J. (2017). Network sampling: From snowball and multiplicity to respondent-driven sampling. Annual Review of Sociology, 43(1), 101–119.
Hjortskov, M. (2017). Priming and Context Effects in Citizen Satisfaction Surveys. Public Administration, 95(4), 912-926. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12346
Hughes, L. C., & Preski, S. (1997). Using key informant methods in organizational survey research: Assessing for informant bias. Research in Nursing & Health, 20(1), 81–92.
Inter-Agency Standing Committee. (2020). Exploring peace within the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus (HDPN) (IASC Issue Paper).
Jankowitz, S. (2021). Grassroots Organizations and Peacebuilding. In The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Peace and Conflict Studies. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11795-5_169-1
Khoury, R. B. (2020). Hard-to-survey populations and respondent-driven sampling: Expanding the political science toolbox. Perspectives on Politics, 18(2), 509–526. https://doi.org/10.1017/S153759271900386
Kurtenbach, S., & Daniels, K. B. (2021). The entanglements of peace: Reflections on the long road to transformation in Colombia (English edition). German Institute for Global and Area Studies (GIGA), Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Colombia (FESCOL), & Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/kolumbien/18213-20210901.pdf
Khoury, R. B. (2020). Hard-to-survey populations and respondent-driven sampling: Expanding the political science toolbox. Perspectives on Politics, 18(2), 509–526. https://web.archive.org/web/20200505164805id_/https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/510F4E2D0F1A17B700F6DBBE5E79D136/S1537592719003864a.pdf
Land, T., Hauck, V., Desmidt, S., Keita, A., Veron, P., Weller, E., & Mackie, J. (2022). HDP Nexus: Challenges and Opportunities for its Implementation. Brussels: European Commission, DG INTPA. Study conducted by ECDPM and Particip GmbH. https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-05/eu-hdp-nexus-study-final-report-nov-2022_en.pdf
Paffenholz, T. (2009). Civil society and peacebuilding: Summary of results for a comparative research project. https://www.inclusivepeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/paper-civil-society-peacebuilding-en.pdf
Paffenholz, T. (Ed.). (2010). Civil Society & Peacebuilding: A Critical Assessment (pp. 43–64). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Pasek, J., & Krosnick, J. A. (2010). Optimizing survey questionnaire design in political science: Insights from psychology. https://calgara.github.io/Pol157_Spring2019/Pasek%20&%20Krosnick%202010.pdf
Payne, L. (2020). What Can Faith-Based Forms of Violent Conflict Prevention Teach Us About Liberal Peace? Religions, 11(4), 167. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11040167
Sadler, G. R., Lee, H. C., Lim, R. S. H., & Fullerton, J. (2010). Recruitment of hard‐to‐reach population subgroups via adaptations of the snowball sampling strategy. Nursing & Health Sciences, 12(3), 369–374.
Santchi M. & CSRF (2023), Why do chiefs matter for aid actors and conflict sensitivity? The role of chiefs in conflict-sensitive aid and peacebuilding. Conflict Sensitivity Resource Facility South Sudan. https://www.csrf-southsudan.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CSRF-Analysis_Why-do-chiefs-matter.pdf
Stern, M. J., Bilgen, I., & Dillman, D. A. (2014). The state of survey methodology: Challenges, dilemmas, and new frontiers in the era of the tailored design. Field Methods, 26(3), 284–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X13519561
United Nations General Assembly. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-right
United Nations General Assembly. (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. United Nations Treaty Series, 999, 171. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights
United Nations General Assembly. (1966). International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. United Nations Treaty Series, 993, 3. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights
Van Leeuwen, M., Nindorera, J., Kambale Nzweve, J. L., & Corbijn, C. (2019). The ‘local turn’ and notions of conflict and peacebuilding – Reflections on local peace committees in Burundi and eastern DR Congo. Peacebuilding, 8(3), 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/21647259.2019.1633760
Zeller, R. A., & Carmines, E. G. (1980). Measurement in the Social Sciences: The Link Between Theory and Data. Cambridge University Press.
R Packages
Wickham, H., François, R., Henry, L., Müller, K., & Vaughan, D. (2023). dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation (R package version 1.1.4). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr
Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag New York.
Slowikowski, K. (2026). ggrepel: Automatically position non-overlapping text labels with ‘ggplot2’ (R package version 0.9.8). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggrepel
Wilke, C. O., & Wiernik, B. M. (2022). ggtext: Improved text rendering support for ‘ggplot2’ (R package version 0.1.2). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggtext
R Core Team. (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
Ooms, J. (2014). The jsonlite package: A practical and consistent mapping between JSON data and R objects. arXiv:1403.2805. https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.2805
Zhu, H. (2024). kableExtra: Construct complex tables with ‘kable’ and pipe syntax (R package version 1.4.0). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=kableExtra
Xie, Y. (2024). knitr: A general-purpose package for dynamic report generation in R (R package version 1.49). https://yihui.org/knitr/
Grolemund, G., & Wickham, H. (2011). Dates and times made easy with lubridate. Journal of Statistical Software, 40(3), 1–25. https://www.jstatsoft.org/v40/i03/
Pedersen, T. L. (2025). patchwork: The composer of plots (R package version 1.3.2). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=patchwork
Wickham, H., & Henry, L. (2025). purrr: Functional programming tools (R package version 1.0.4). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=purrr
Neuwirth, E. (2022). RColorBrewer: ColorBrewer palettes (R package version 1.1-3). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=RColorBrewer
Dicko, A. (2026). rgeoboundaries: A client to geoBoundaries, a political administrative boundaries dataset (R package version 1.3.1). https://github.com/wmgeolab/rgeoboundaries
Henry, L., & Wickham, H. (2026). rlang: Functions for base types and core R and ‘tidyverse’ features (R package version 1.1.7). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rlang
Massicotte, P., & South, A. (2026). rnaturalearth: World map data from Natural Earth (R package version 1.2.0). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rnaturalearth
Pebesma, E., & Bivand, R. (2023). Spatial data science: With applications in R. Chapman and Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429459016
Pebesma, E. (2018). Simple features for R: Standardized support for spatial vector data. The R Journal, 10(1), 439–446. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2018-009
Gagolewski, M. (2022). stringi: Fast and portable character string processing in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 103(2), 1–59. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v103.i02
Wickham, H. (2023). stringr: Simple, consistent wrappers for common string operations (R package version 1.5.1). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=stringr
Müller, K., & Wickham, H. (2023). tibble: Simple data frames (R package version 3.2.1). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tibble
Wickham, H., Vaughan, D., & Girlich, M. (2024). tidyr: Tidy messy data (R package version 1.3.1). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tidyr
Garnier, S., Ross, N., Rudis, R., Camargo, A. P., Sciaini, M., & Scherer, C. (2024). viridis: Colorblind-friendly color maps for R (R package version 0.6.5). https://sjmgarnier.github.io/viridis/
Chang, W. (2025). webshot2: Take screenshots of web pages (R package version 0.1.2). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=webshot2
Annex
Questionnaire
QUESTIONNAIRE (English)
|
INTRODUCTION |
|
Dear Participant, Thank you for taking the time to join this anonymous survey. Purpose of the survey: This survey is part of the project “Power Relations of Peace: How Can the HDP Nexus Actors Work Together Towards Peace?” led by bicc - Bonn International Centre for Conflict Studies. We are conducting the survey based on our legitimate interest to better understand how peace is envisioned and pursued by various organisations in the humanitarian, development and peace sectors, working in conflict-affected or fragile settings.
We are interested in understanding how your organisation defines peace and engages in related activities—rather than gathering your opinion as an individual. If you are unsure about any answer, please select the option that best reflects your organisation’s overall approach or leave it blank. Some questions may touch on sensitive topics. If at any point you feel discomfort, you are free to skip the question or exit the survey. You can save your progress at any time and return later to complete the survey. By clicking “Resume later,” you will be prompted to enter a name, password, and optionally an email address. This information is stored securely in a separate database, to which the survey administrators do not have access. Thank you for your valuable contribution! Sincerely, The Research Team Before clicking “Next”, you confirm that you have read and agreed to the conditions described below and wish to proceed with the survey. |
|
PRIVACY POLICY |
|
· Your responses will remain anonymous and are not linked to your identity. Neither other participants nor the research team will know who you are. · You will not be asked to provide personal data, and your answers will not be connected to any email, social media, or identifying account. · The survey is entirely voluntary. You can skip any question and always have the option to leave it unanswered. · You may exit the survey at any time without explanation. · The survey data is collected via the platform LimeSurvey. · Your responses will be analysed at the group level using established scientific methods. · The results will be used solely for academic and policy research purposes (e.g., reports, working papers, policy briefs). · They will not be used for advertising or any commercial activities.
If you received the invitation to the survey via a personalised message (e.g., e-mail), your entries in the survey are not technically linked to this access key. There is no way for us (bicc) to merge access information with your answers. Your data therefore remains anonymous—even from a technical perspective.
If you would like to contact us personally, you will find contact details at the end of the survey. You can also find our privacy policy here: Privacy Policy – bicc. |
|
|
UNDERSTANDING PEACE ACTIONS |
|
|
|
Organisations often
specialise in some peace-related activities more than others. For
example, some focus on mediation, others on advocacy, or on
service-oriented work. This section of the survey seeks to understand
the actual focus of your organisation in its peace efforts. Please take a moment to review each category of peace-related activities and the examples listed. For each category, select and rank the activities that your organisation has engaged in as part of its efforts to promote or support peace— whether in the past or currently. This may include activities that contributed to peace in the short, medium, or long term. When answering please think of your organisation’s real work — not everything possible. If a category does not reflect your organisation’s work, it is perfectly fine to skip it.
Please bear in mind that this is not an evaluation. There are many ways to contribute to peace, and all perspectives and experiences are equally valid.
Remember, you can always click “Resume later” to save your answers and continue the survey whenever it suits you |
|
|
No |
Survey Question |
Answer Options (Select all that apply) |
|
1 |
Which of the following monitoring or protective activities has your organisation engaged in as part of its peace work? Please select and rank the activities based on how important or relevant they are to your organisation’s peace-related work. Choose only the activities that truly reflect your organisation’s work. You may leave the list blank if none of the activities apply. |
Tracking or reporting incidents of violence or injustice |
|
Monitoring and informing communities about legal or political developments. |
||
|
Promoting and protecting human rights, with attention to women and minority groups |
||
|
Monitoring the implementation and progress of peace efforts, agreements or processes. |
||
|
2 |
Which of the following advocacy activities has your organisation engaged in to promote peace?
Please select and rank the activities based on how important or relevant they are to your organisation’s peace-related work. Choose only the activities that truly reflect your organisation’s work. You may leave the list blank if none of the activities apply
|
Raising awareness, mobilising support, or participating in campaigns for peace-related causes.
|
|
Speaking on behalf of marginalised groups |
||
|
Negotiating or advocating for safe access to humanitarian aid, health services, or relief efforts in conflict-affected areas |
||
|
Assisting in organising elections or transitional political processes |
||
|
Supporting constitutional processes and national dialogue |
||
|
Initiatives to promote transparency, accountability, or monitor corruption and abuse of authority |
||
|
Providing advice or support to security sector reform (e.g. police, army) |
||
|
3 |
Which of the following social engagement or educational activities has your organisation used to support peace? Please select and rank the activities based on how important or relevant they are to your organisation’s peace-related work. Choose only the activities that truly reflect your organisation’s work. You may leave the list blank if none of the activities apply
|
Organising education or cultural events (e.g. workshops, trainings, festivals, clubs) |
|
Using storytelling, theatre or arts as tools for peace education |
||
|
Preventing harmful behaviours (e.g. hate speech, incitement to violence) |
||
|
Using media, brochures, or dialogue to promote peaceful values |
||
|
4
|
Which of the following activities has your organisation used to bring different groups together and strengthen inclusion in communities?
Please select and rank only the activities that truly reflect your organisation’s peace-related work, based on their importance or relevance, and leave the list blank if none apply.
|
Facilitating dialogue and interaction between people from different communities, backgrounds, or religions |
|
Creating opportunities for women, youth, or marginalised groups to participate in community life |
||
|
Promoting mutual respect, trust, and collaboration between groups with a history of tension or conflict , including participation in each other’s social or cultural events. |
||
|
Encouraging joint planning, dialogue, or shared visions for the future |
||
|
Supporting efforts to challenge harmful gender norms, roles, or expectations placed on men and women |
||
|
Supporting reintegration of former combatants into communities |
||
|
5 |
Which of the following shared activities or spaces has your organisation supported to reduce divisions and build social cohesion?
|
Supporting shared economic or livelihood initiatives (e.g. cooperatives, joint markets) |
|
Organising joint community actions or events (e.g. cleanups, festivals, shared meals) |
||
|
Creating inclusive spaces for arts, sports, or cultural interaction |
||
|
Building diverse staff teams that reflect the communities served |
||
|
Creating or restoring inclusive and safe public spaces for community use |
||
|
6 |
Which of the following dialogue or conflict resolution activities has your organisation engaged in?
|
Supporting or creating spaces for community dialogue |
|
Mediating or directly facilitating the resolution of local disputes or tensions between individuals,families or groups |
||
|
Training or supporting local leaders to mediate conflicts |
||
|
Supporting traditional conflict resolution systems (e.g. elders, popular courts) |
||
|
Creating new local structures for resolving conflict |
||
|
Supporting or establishing local community committees (e.g. for infrastructure, land use, natural resource management) |
||
|
Supporting or creating mechanisms that address historical injustices or facilitating truth-telling and reconciliation processes |
||
|
Bringing communities and justice actors together to build understanding, offer guidance, and strengthen confidence in the justice system. |
||
|
7 |
Which of the following service-related activities has your organisation supported to promote peace?
|
Helping individuals meet urgent or essential needs (e.g. food, shelter, clean water, transport) |
|
Providing tools or resources to help people earn a living |
||
|
Improving access to healthcare |
||
|
Support to improve equal access to justice, legal advice or documentation (e.g. ID cards) |
||
|
Supporting or providing solutions for displaced populations |
||
|
Providing or supporting trauma healing, psychosocial, or mental health services |
||
|
Helping the community strengthen trade and economic ties within its area and with other regions |
||
|
8 |
Which of the following preventive activities has your organisation used to avoid future violence or instability?
|
Promoting early warning, risk analysis, and responsive information services |
|
Building community resilience to shocks or conflict |
||
|
Engaging communities in climate adaptation or disaster risk reduction planning. |
||
|
Engaging youth or vulnerable groups in leadership roles |
||
|
Considering and minimising any unintended effects of your organisation’s work (e.g. do-no-harm programming, feedback mechanisms) |
||
|
UNDERSTANDINGS OF PEACE |
||
|
When we ask about peace, we recognise that the word can carry many meanings. Organisations may understand peace differently depending on their context, experience, or focus.This section of the survey aims to understand how your organisation defines peace in its own terms. On the next pages, please indicate for each statement how important or not important it is to your organisation’s understanding of peace. This is not an evaluation, there are no right or wrong answers, and all understandings are equally valid. Remember, you can always click “Resume later” to save your answers and continue the survey whenever it suits you. |
||
|
No |
Survey Statement |
Answer |
|
For each of the following statements, please rate how important or not important each aspect is to your organisation’s understanding of peace, considering its context, experience, and area of focus. |
||
|
Negative Peace (internal classification , not for externals to see) |
||
|
1 |
People not using violence to achieve their goals in the community (Internal: physical integrity; UDHR Art 3) |
"Not important", "Somewhat important", "Neither important nor not important", "Somewhat important", "Very important" |
|
2 |
The absence of war or armed confrontation. (Internal: physical integrity; UDHR Art 3) |
Not at all → Very important |
|
3 |
People feel safe in their daily lives. (Internal: physical integrity; UDHR Art 3) |
Not at all → Very important
|
|
4 |
Individuals in the community are not subjected to inhuman treatment. (Internal: physical integrity; UDHR Art 3) |
Not at all → Very important
|
|
5 |
Individuals can move freely within the living area and country without fear. (Internal: freedom of movement; UDHR Art 13) |
Not at all → Very important
|
|
Positive Peace (internal, not for externals to see) |
||
|
6 |
Respectful interaction between people from different backgrounds (e.g., ethnic, religious, or place of origin). (Internal: inclusion; UDHR Art 1,2) |
Not at all → Very important
|
|
7 |
Fair access to services like education or healthcare. (Internal: access to services; UDHR Art 25,26) |
Not at all → Very important
|
|
8 |
People have security over their land and property. (Internal: security; UDHR Art 17) |
Not at all → Very important
|
|
9 |
Access to justice when people are harmed or in conflict. (internal: justice; UDHR Art 7,8,10) |
Not at all → Very important
|
|
10 |
Individuals being able to earn a living and support their families. (internal: livelihood; UDHR Art 23) |
Not at all → Very important
|
|
11 |
Reciprocal relationships among neighbours. (internal: social cohesion; UDHR Art 1,29) |
Not at all → Very important
|
|
12 |
Freedom for each member of the community to practice their religion. (internal: freedom of belief; UDHR Art 18) |
Not at all → Very important
|
|
Positive Peace (internal, not for externals to see) |
||
|
13 |
Harmonious relationships between men and women in family and community life. (internal: gender; UDHR Art 16) |
Not at all → Very important
|
|
14 |
A leadership that represents the community’s interests, practices, and priorities. (Internal: political representation; UDHR Art 21) |
Not at all → Very important
|
|
15 |
Community participation in local decision-making. (internal: participation; UDHR Art 21) |
Not at all → Very important
|
|
16 |
No one being invisible in the eyes of local institutions or authorities. (internal: equality/recognition; UDHR Art 6) |
Not at all → Very important
|
|
17 |
Respect in the community of diverse cultural identities. (internal: diversity; UDHR Art 27) |
Not at all → Very important
|
|
18 |
Individuals in the community have fair, safe and decent working conditions (internal: dignified work; UDHR Art 23) |
Not at all → Very important
|
|
19 |
Individuals in the community can express opinions freely and without fear of punishment (internal: freedom of expression; UDHR Art 19) |
Not at all → Very important
|
|
20 |
Minority or marginalised groups are fully included in community life and decision-making. (Internal: inclusion / integration; UDHR Art 2, 21, 27 ) |
Not at all → Very important
|
|
21 |
Individuals in the community experience emotional
well-being and mental health. |
Not at all → Very important
|
|
22 |
Individuals in the community live in a healthy and sustainable natural environment (Internal: environmental well-being; UDHR Art 25 ) |
Not at all → Very important
|
|
ORGANISATION INFORMATION |
||
|
Please provide some basic information about your organisation.
This helps us better understand your organisational background and the context in which you carry out your work.
There are no right or wrong answers — all responses are welcome and appreciated. |
||
|
No |
Question |
Answers |
|
1 |
In which country is your organisation mainly implementing its activities?
Please answer with the country of implementation, not the country where your headquarters or offices are located (unless they are the same).
|
South Sudan Mali Syria
|
|
2 |
Please indicate some of the main locality(ies) or regions where your organisation is active within the country(ies) you mentioned
List just the key areas where you work. This can be at any level (e.g., region, province, district, town). |
Digital Mapping (all) |
|
3 |
How would you describe your organisation? |
Local NGO / Community Based Organisation National NGO Faith Based Organisation Chapter or Local Branch of International NGO UN Agency or Local Branch International Organisation Agency or Local Branch International NGO – Headquarter UN - Headquarter International Organisation - Headquarter |
|
4 |
To what extent does your organisation incorporate peace or conflict prevention in its programming and activities? |
It is a primary focus across most of our work It is addressed in specific projects only or occasionally considered It is not part of our programming Unsure / Prefer not to say
|
|
5 |
Please specify approximately since when your organisation, agency or local branch operates |
Month/Year (e.g., MM/YYYY) |
|
6 |
Specify the approximate number of staff members your organisation, agency or local branch has in the country you operate in. |
Numeric answer |
|
7 |
Are you part of a larger network or umbrella organisation? |
Yes – formally (e.g., through a legal, contractual, or official membership) Yes – informally (e.g., through collaboration, shared goals, or regular exchange) Yes – both formally and informally No – neither formal nor informal affiliation (not part of any larger network or umbrella organisation)
|
|
8 |
Please indicate the main focus area(s) of your organisation. (Select all that apply) |
Humanitarian / Development / Peace/ Other |
|
9 |
Does your organisation, agency or local branch have a written or stated definition of what peace means to you? |
Yes, it is written in an official document (e.g., mission, vision, strategy) Yes, it is commonly understood within our team, but not formally written No, we do not have a defined or stated understanding of peace Not sure
|
|
10 |
If your organisation is part of a larger network or umbrella organisation, are you aware of that organisation’s definition or understanding of peace? |
Yes, and it is written or formally stated Yes, but it is informal or not written down No, we are not aware of any definition Not applicable |
|
RESPONDENT INFORMATION |
||
|
Please complete the questions below to help us understand how the survey responses were prepared and by whom. This ensures that we can properly interpret and contextualise the results.
These questions are not used to assess or evaluate your organisation but to better understand how the information was gathered.
|
||
|
No |
Question |
Answers |
|
1 |
Which of the following best describes how the survey responses were developed?
|
I completed the survey based on my individual knowledge and experience I consulted with one or more colleagues before completing the survey The responses were discussed and agreed upon by a team or department The organisation held a formal internal consultation to inform the response
|
|
2 |
How long have you been affiliated with your organisation?
|
Less than 6 months 6 months to 1 year 1–3 years 3–5 years More than 5 years |
|
DEBRIEFING |
|
Thank you for participating.
The answers you have provided will be stored anonymously and securely at bicc (Bonn International Centre for Conflict Studies) and will be used solely for academic research purposes. All responses will be analysed at the group level; no individual responses will be identified or analysed separately.
After analysis and publication of the respective outcomes, the anonymised dataset will be made publicly accessible on the bicc website (www.bicc.de) for transparency and further research use.
The results of this study will be shared through a research report and policy brief.
You can also access the findings directly on our website once published.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the research team at:
If you are interested in learning more about our research or receiving updates on this project and the survey results, we invite you to click the link below to stay informed. This information will be stored separately and will not be linked to your survey responses in any way.
We sincerely thank you once again for your valuable contribution. |
Geographic classification
Respondents described where they operate in their own words. Some named regions, others mentioned towns, alternative spellings, or broader directional areas. Because these answers were written in different formats and languages, we applied a consistent process to interpret them and make them comparable.
Each response was reviewed to identify any region, state, governorate, or major town mentioned. Towns were linked to their corresponding region. Where multiple places were listed, all were recorded. When respondents stated that their work was “national,” it was classified as nationwide coverage.
The table below shows exactly which areas were included under each category.
| Country | Category | Areas Included |
|---|---|---|
| Mali | South | Kayes, Koulikoro, Sikasso, Bamako, Ségou (Segou), Bougouni, Kati, Nara |
| Center | Mopti, San, Bandiagara, Douentza, Koro, Tenenkou, Youwarou | |
| North-East | Gao, Ménaka (Menaka), Ansongo, Bara, Bourra, Tessiture, Tallataye, Ouatagouna | |
| North-West | Tombouctou, Taoudénit, Kidal | |
| South Sudan | Bahr el Ghazal | Northern Bahr el Ghazal (including Aweil and surrounding counties), Western Bahr el Ghazal (including Wau), Warrap (including Kwajok), Lakes |
| Equatoria | Central Equatoria (including Juba, Yei, Kajo-Keji, Lainya, Terekeka), Eastern Equatoria (including Torit, Magwi), Western Equatoria | |
| Upper Nile | Upper Nile (including Malakal, Melut, Nasir), Unity (including Leer), Jonglei (including Akobo, Pibor) | |
| Combinations | Any combination of the three macro-regions above | |
| Syria | Hasakah | “Hasakah”, “Al-Hasakah”, “Alhskt”, “Qamishli”, “Qamshly”, الحسكة, القامشلي |
| Raqqa | “Raqqa”, “Al-Raqqa”, “Alrqt”, الرقة | |
| Aleppo | “Aleppo”, “Halab”, “Hlb”, حلب | |
| Latakia | “Latakia”, “Lattakia”, “Alladhqyt”, “Coastal”, “Al-Sahel”, اللاذقية, الساحل | |
| Suwayda | “Suwayda”, “Sweida”, “Alswyda”, السويداء | |
| Hama | “Hama”, “Hmah”, حماة | |
| Damascus | “Damascus”, “Dmshq”, دمشق | |
| Combinations | Any combination of the areas listed above |
Linking logic
| Understanding Peace (Dimension) | Peace Actions | Basis for Link |
|---|---|---|
| Fair access to services like education or healthcare | Improving access to healthcare | Improving access to healthcare is a direct link; healthcare explicitly named |
| Support to improve equal access to justice, legal advice or documentation (e.g. ID cards) | Fair access implies equity dimension; legal service access is a form of service access | |
| Providing or supporting trauma healing, psychosocial or mental health services | Mental health services are a form of service access | |
| Helping individuals meet urgent or essential needs (e.g. food, shelter, clean water, transport) | Immediate service access (narrow, survival-oriented interpretation) | |
| Organising education or cultural events (e.g. workshops, trainings, festivals, clubs) | Educational events might provide education but only short term | |
| Community participation in local decision-making | Supporting or establishing local community committees (e.g. for infrastructure, land use, natural resource management) | Community committees are the primary local decision-making structure |
| Creating new local structures for resolving conflict | New local structures create participatory channels for community decision-making | |
| Encouraging joint planning, dialogue, or shared visions for the future | Joint planning is a direct operational form of local community decision-making | |
| Creating opportunities for women, youth, or marginalised groups to participate in community life | Creating opportunities for marginalised groups to participate in decisions | |
| Facilitating dialogue and interaction between people from different communities, backgrounds, or religions | Dialogue is a form of participatory engagement across groups | |
| Engaging youth or vulnerable groups in leadership roles | Youth in leadership roles is a form of community participation in decision-making | |
| Organising joint community actions or events (e.g. cleanups, festivals, shared meals) | Collective actions are a form of community participation in public life | |
| Respect in the community of diverse cultural identities | Promoting mutual respect, trust, and collaboration between groups with a history of tension or conflict , including part | Mutual respect between groups is the most direct match |
| Facilitating dialogue and interaction between people from different communities, backgrounds, or religions | Inter-community dialogue is a diversity-building mechanism | |
| Creating inclusive spaces for arts, sports, or cultural interaction | Cultural interaction spaces operationalise respect for cultural diversity | |
| Building diverse staff teams that reflect the communities served | Staff diversity is a form of organisational respect for community cultural diversity | |
| Organising joint community actions or events (e.g. cleanups, festivals, shared meals) | Joint events bring diverse cultural groups together | |
| Using storytelling, theatre or arts as tools for peace education | Arts and storytelling may express and celebrate diverse cultural identities | |
| Individuals being able to earn a living and support their families | Providing tools or resources to help people earn a living | Tools and resources are needed for individuals to earn a living |
| Helping the community strengthen trade and economic ties within its area and with other regions | Economic integration is a structural pathway to earning a living | |
| Supporting shared economic or livelihood initiatives (e.g. cooperatives, joint markets) | Livelihood initiatives are a collective form of earning a living | |
| Individuals in the community experience emotional well-being and mental health | Considering and minimising any unintended effects of your organisation’s work (e.g. do-no-harm programming, feedback mec | Do-no-harm addresses too psychosocial harm from interventions |
| Engaging youth or vulnerable groups in leadership roles | Leadership roles provide purpose and social connection to youths and vulnerable groups contributing to the community and their emotional well-being | |
| Providing or supporting trauma healing, psychosocial or mental health services | Psychosocial services are the primary operational mechanism | |
| Helping individuals meet urgent or essential needs (e.g. food, shelter, clean water, transport) | Unmet survival needs are a driver of poor emotional well-being | |
| Using storytelling, theatre or arts as tools for peace education | Arts-based approaches are an established psychosocial support mechanism | |
| Individuals can move freely within the living area and country without fear | Negotiating or advocating for safe access to humanitarian aid, health services, or relief efforts in conflict-affected a | Safe access advocacy directly relates to freedom of movement in conflict |
| Monitoring and informing communities about legal or political developments | Legal/political monitoring covers movement-restricting policies | |
| Supporting or providing solutions for displaced populations | Displacement is closely related to freedom of movement | |
| Individuals in the community can express opinions freely and without fear of punishment | Raising awareness, mobilising support, or participating in campaigns for peace-related causes. | Awareness-raising as an act of expression may help protect freedom of expression itself |
| Promoting and protecting human rights, with attention to women and minority groups | Promoting and protecting human rights is fundamental for freedom of expression | |
| Using media, brochures, or dialogue to promote peaceful values | Media use is a form of expression, though it promotes rather than protects it | |
| Preventing harmful behaviours (e.g. hate speech, incitement to violence) | Hate speech prevention allow freedom of expression of vulnerable groups | |
| Using storytelling, theatre or arts as tools for peace education | Artistic expression is a form of free expression; arts education creates space for it | |
| Harmonious relationships between men and women in family and community life | Speaking on behalf of marginalised groups | Women are a primary marginalised group |
| Supporting efforts to challenge harmful gender norms, roles, or expectations placed on men and women | Gender norms directly affect harmony between men and women | |
| Promoting mutual respect, trust, and collaboration between groups with a history of tension or conflict , including part | Mutual respect maps directly to relational harmony between genders | |
| Creating opportunities for women, youth, or marginalised groups to participate in community life | Women-specific opportunities contribute to more equitable gender relations | |
| Individuals in the community live in a healthy and sustainable natural environment | Engaging communities in climate adaptation or disaster risk reduction planning | Climate/environmental action is the direct operational equivalent |
| Helping individuals meet urgent or essential needs (e.g. food, shelter, clean water, transport) | Helping individuals meet urgent or essential needs can reduce the pressure to exploit natural resources unsustainably | |
| Creating or restoring inclusive and safe public spaces for community use | Restoring safe public spaces can connect to having a healthy environment | |
| Minority or marginalised groups are fully included in community life and decision-making | Speaking on behalf of marginalised groups | Advocacy for marginalised groups supports their inclusion |
| Creating opportunities for women, youth, or marginalised groups to participate in community life | Creating opportunities covers the social inclusion in community life component | |
| Supporting reintegration of former combatants into communities | Combatant reintegration a direct minority inclusion challenge in post-conflict settings | |
| Encouraging joint planning, dialogue, or shared visions for the future | Joint planning operationalises political inclusion | |
| Facilitating dialogue and interaction between people from different communities, backgrounds, or religions | Inter-community dialogue addresses inter-group inclusion | |
| Engaging youth or vulnerable groups in leadership roles | Youth/vulnerable group leadership directly addresses inclusion in decision-making | |
| Creating inclusive spaces for arts, sports, or cultural interaction | Inclusive cultural spaces operationalise social inclusion in community life | |
| Access to justice when people are harmed or in conflict | Initiatives to promote transparency, accountability, or monitor corruption and abuse of authority | Accountability is a component of procedural justice |
| Bringing communities and justice actors together to build understanding, offer guidance, and strengthen confidence in th | Connecting communities to justice actors is a justice-access mechanism; directly matches remedial framing | |
| Supporting or creating mechanisms that address historical injustices or facilitating truth-telling and reconciliation pr | Truth & reconciliation is specifically about access to justice after harm | |
| Supporting or creating spaces for community dialogue | Dialogue can be a form of informal dispute resolution | |
| Supporting traditional conflict resolution systems (e.g. elders, popular courts) | Traditional systems are an informal justice access mechanism | |
| Creating new local structures for resolving conflict | New local structures expand justice access at community level | |
| Support to improve equal access to justice, legal advice or documentation (e.g. ID cards) | Equal access to justice is a direct link | |
| Individuals in the community are not subjected to degrading treatment | Speaking on behalf of marginalised groups | Advocacy for marginalised groups addresses discriminatory treatment |
| Initiatives to promote transparency, accountability, or monitor corruption and abuse of authority | Accountability mechanisms deter degrading treatment by authorities | |
| Providing advice or support to security sector reform (e.g. police, army) | Security sector reform could address state-perpetrated degrading treatment | |
| Promoting and protecting human rights, with attention to women and minority groups | Protection from degrading treatment is a core human rights principle | |
| People not using violence to achieve their goals in the community | Tracking or reporting incidents of violence or injustice | Violence tracking is a prevention mechanism for further violence |
| Promoting and protecting human rights, with attention to women and minority groups | Human rights protection includes protection from violence | |
| Building community resilience to shocks or conflict | Resilience to conflict is the operational pathway to violence prevention | |
| Promoting early warning, risk analysis, and responsive information services | Early warning is a core mechanism for preventing violence | |
| Considering and minimising any unintended effects of your organisation’s work (e.g. do-no-harm programming, feedback mec | Do-no-harm ensures interventions reduce violence | |
| Engaging youth or vulnerable groups in leadership roles | Youth engagement in leadership provides non-violent pathways | |
| Preventing harmful behaviours (e.g. hate speech, incitement to violence) | Incitement to violence prevention is a direct precursor to physical violence | |
| Using media, brochures, or dialogue to promote peaceful values | Awareness helps not using violence | |
| Using storytelling, theatre or arts as tools for peace education | Arts-based peace education can address drivers of violencE | |
| The absence of war or armed confrontation | Negotiating or advocating for safe access to humanitarian aid, health services, or relief efforts in conflict-affected a | Safe access negotiation is a direct response to active armed conflict |
| Raising awareness, mobilising support, or participating in campaigns for peace-related causes. | Advocacy for peaceful means is a direct alternative | |
| Supporting or creating spaces for community dialogue | Dialogue is the primary non-violent alternative to armed confrontation | |
| Supporting traditional conflict resolution systems (e.g. elders, popular courts) | Traditional systems can prevent armed escalation of local conflicts | |
| Creating new local structures for resolving conflict | New conflict resolution structures provide alternatives to armed confrontation | |
| Monitoring the implementation and progress of peace efforts, agreements or processes. | Monitoring peace agreements is a post-war stability mechanism directly linked to absence of war | |
| Building community resilience to shocks or conflict | Conflict resilience is the primary prevention mechanism for armed conflict | |
| Promoting early warning, risk analysis, and responsive information services | Early warning systems are designed to prevent escalation to armed conflict | |
| Reciprocal relationships among neighbours | Supporting or creating spaces for community dialogue | Creating spaces for dialgue proomtes reciprocal and respectful relationships |
| Promoting mutual respect, trust, and collaboration between groups with a history of tension or conflict , including part | Mutual respect is a component of reciprocal relations | |
| Organising joint community actions or events (e.g. cleanups, festivals, shared meals) | Joint community actions promote reciprocal relations between neighbors | |
| Supporting shared economic or livelihood initiatives (e.g. cooperatives, joint markets) | Neighbourhood-scale economic cooperation is a form of reciprocal relationship | |
| Organising education or cultural events (e.g. workshops, trainings, festivals, clubs) | Cultural and educational events can promote reciprocal relationships | |
| Using storytelling, theatre or arts as tools for peace education | Shared arts and cultural storytelling may build neighbourhood bonds | |
| Freedom for each member of the community to practice their religion | Facilitating dialogue and interaction between people from different communities, backgrounds, or religions | Inter-religious dialogue is a form of inter-community dialogue |
| Promoting mutual respect, trust, and collaboration between groups with a history of tension or conflict , including part | Mutual respect is a basis for freedom of religion | |
| Promoting and protecting human rights, with attention to women and minority groups | Religious freedom is a human right | |
| Organising education or cultural events (e.g. workshops, trainings, festivals, clubs) | Cultural events can include inter-faith dimensions | |
| A leadership that represents the community’s interests, practices, and priorities | Supporting constitutional processes and national dialogue | Constitutional processes and dialogue could promote community-level leadership |
| Assisting in organising elections or transitional political processes | Elections at different levels are central for representative leadership | |
| Initiatives to promote transparency, accountability, or monitor corruption and abuse of authority | Accountability is a condition for representative governance at any level | |
| Training or supporting local leaders to mediate conflicts | Local leader training is a way to have representative leadership | |
| Supporting or establishing local community committees (e.g. for infrastructure, land use, natural resource management) | Directly relevant to community-level representative leadership | |
| Creating new local structures for resolving conflict | New local structures can embody community-representative governance | |
| Encouraging joint planning, dialogue, or shared visions for the future | Joint planning operationalises community interests being represented in local decisions | |
| Engaging youth or vulnerable groups in leadership roles | Youth leadership development is directly linked to building community-level representative leadership | |
| Respectful interaction between people from different backgrounds | Mediating or directly facilitating the resolution of local disputes or tensions between individuals,families or groups | Mediation requires and promotes respectful interaction between parties |
| Promoting mutual respect, trust, and collaboration between groups with a history of tension or conflict , including part | Semantic match: mutual respect = respectful interaction between groups | |
| Creating inclusive spaces for arts, sports, or cultural interaction | Arts, sports, and cultural activities create shared experiences that build familiarity and mutual respect across social divides | |
| Preventing harmful behaviours (e.g. hate speech, incitement to violence) | Hate speech prevention is the negative-action form of respectful interaction | |
| Using storytelling, theatre or arts as tools for peace education | Arts-based approaches build cross-cultural respect | |
| People feel safe in their daily lives | Tracking or reporting incidents of violence or injustice | Incident tracking is a safety monitoring mechanism |
| Building community resilience to shocks or conflict | Community resilience directly supports physical safety | |
| Engaging youth or vulnerable groups in leadership roles | Youth engagement in constructive roles reduces safety risks for them and for the communities | |
| Helping individuals meet urgent or essential needs (e.g. food, shelter, clean water, transport) | Basic needs fulfilment is a foundation of physical safety | |
| People have security over their land and property | Speaking on behalf of marginalised groups | Marginalised groups are most affected by land/property insecurity |
| Initiatives to promote transparency, accountability, or monitor corruption and abuse of authority | Corruption is a driver of land tenure insecurity | |
| Supporting or establishing local community committees (e.g. for infrastructure, land use, natural resource management) | Community committees often handle land dispute mediation | |
| Supporting traditional conflict resolution systems (e.g. elders, popular courts) | Traditional systems (elders) are primary land dispute resolution mechanisms | |
| Supporting or providing solutions for displaced populations | Displacement is the a common form of land/property insecurity | |
| No one being invisible in the eyes of local institutions or authorities | Speaking on behalf of marginalised groups | Amplifying marginalised voices is the operational form of institutional visibility |
| Initiatives to promote transparency, accountability, or monitor corruption and abuse of authority | Transparency creates the conditions for community visibility in governance | |
| Monitoring and informing communities about legal or political developments | Legal/political monitoring supports community awareness of institutional processes | |
| Support to improve equal access to justice, legal advice or documentation (e.g. ID cards) | Providing ID cards is key for no one being invisible and their rights respected | |
| Individuals in the community have fair, safe and decent working conditions | Promoting and protecting human rights, with attention to women and minority groups | Labour rights are a subset of human rights |
| Considering and minimising any unintended effects of your organisation’s work (e.g. do-no-harm programming, feedback mec | Do-no-harm explicitly covers organisational responsibility for working conditions | |
| Providing tools or resources to help people earn a living | Access to livelihood tools and resources can expand people’s economic options, reducing their dependence on exploitative or unsafe work |
Abbreviations
Peace Actions
| Full Title | Short Label |
|---|---|
| Monitoring & Protection | monitoring |
| Advocacy | advocacy |
| Social Engagement | social_engagement |
| Inclusion | inclusion |
| Cohesion | cohesion |
| Conflict Resolution | conflict_resolution |
| Service Related | service_related |
| Prevention | prevention |
Peace Understandings
| Full Label | Short Label | Code Label |
|---|---|---|
| People not using violence to achieve their goals in the community | No violence | No_Violence |
| The absence of war or armed confrontation | No war | No_War |
| People feel safe in their daily lives | Safety | Safety |
| Individuals in the community are not subjected to degrading treatment | No degrading treatment | No_DG_Treatment |
| Individuals can move freely within the living area and country without fear | Free movement | Movement |
| Respectful interaction between people from different backgrounds | Respectful interaction | Respect |
| Fair access to services like education or healthcare | Access services | Services |
| People have security over their land and property | Prop Security | Prop_Security |
| Access to justice when people are harmed or in conflict | Justice | Justice |
| Individuals being able to earn a living and support their families | Earn a living | Livelihoods |
| Reciprocal relationships among neighbours | Reciprocal relationship | Reciprocity |
| Freedom for each member of the community to practice their religion | Religious freedom | Religion |
| Harmonious relationships between men and women in family and community life | Gender relations | Gender |
| A leadership that represents the community’s interests, practices, and priorities | Representative leadership | RepresentativeLeader |
| Community participation in local decision-making | Community Participation | Participation |
| No one being invisible in the eyes of local institutions or authorities | Visibility | Visibility |
| Respect in the community of diverse cultural identities | Diversity | Diversity |
| Individuals in the community have fair, safe and decent working conditions | Work rights | WorkRights |
| Individuals in the community can express opinions freely and without fear of punishment | Freedom of expression | Free_Expression |
| Minority or marginalised groups are fully included in community life and decision-making | Inclusion minorities | Minority_Inclusion |
| Individuals in the community experience emotional well-being and mental health | Emotional well-being | Emotional_Wellness |
| Individuals in the community live in a healthy and sustainable natural environment | Healthy Environment | Healthy_Environment |
Plot and table data
All results presented in this report are fully reproducible from the R code provided. Tabular results — such as the activity ranking tables — can be copied directly from the rendered report as standard text.
For most of the plots, the underlying data are embedded in the HTML report file as hidden JSON objects, each stored in a tag with the next structure: <script type="application/json" class="plain-readable-data">. Each object includes identifier fields, such as tag, country, and cut, followed by a data array containing the counts and totals used to render that figure. This structure makes the plot data accessible to automated tools without requiring the full analysis pipeline to be re-run.
Update timestamp
Data and analyses were current as of 16 April 2026.
Social engagement