Research Brief
The intention of this research is to highlight the need to consider mission environment in a manner that accounts for the malleable nature of such environments. Although a significant number of academic approaches exist in this field, practitioner engagement with the literature has been minimal in the development of mandates for peace missions. As such the aim is to develop a comprehensive framework with which to evaluate mission environment in the interests of improving the formulation of mandates, operational planning and subsequent performance management and evaluation.
Conflict remains and is an endemic phenomenon in many regions across the world; at present there is an upward trend in the overall number of conflicts, with 30 to 40% of countries involved. Assessment of these conflicts is vital when developing a mandate as peace practitioners need to unpack and develop an understanding of the context in which missions occur. Well intentioned, but naïve understandings of mission environments persist and have a deleterious impact on engagement. Analysis of conflict environment is vital for developing resource allocation; also the sequencing of mission components requires precise judgments about environment so as to deploy the correct measures at the correct times.
Initial research is focusing upon the academic considerations of conflict environment. These approaches provide a theoretical backbone that allows for the recent theoretical developments from the academic debates to be transposed into policy relevant terms. The primary perspectives are that of Conflict Cycles, Conflict Models, New and Old Wars, Symmetric and Asymmetric conflicts, State Incapacity and State Collapse. Each of these approaches provides a different perspective on mission environment.
A vital step for the establishment of a comprehensive framework is to evaluate the mission assessment strategies of various states and organisations. The mission environment perspectives come from military and non-military perspectives. The military perspectives are derived from the doctrinal statements in relation to peace missions from Australia, the United States, United Kingdom and NATO. Non-military organisations’ perspectives include frameworks developed by the UK’s Department For International Development, the World Bank, Clingendael Institute, USAID, and Swiss Peace. Analysing and evaluating these frameworks allows for best practices in assessment to be highlighted as well as establishing criteria to gauge the efficacy of any new framework.
Based on the initial research findings a typological framework of conflict environment will be developed. This framework will be able to synthesis contemporary theoretical debate with the best practices of mission environment assessment into a conflict assessment tool to understand mission environment.