Peace Agreements can contain two kinds of provisions; "backward looking" provisions to secure an end to the violence and "forward looking provisions for longterm recovery.

What is the importance of including forward- looking provisions with regards to economic recovery and institution building? How can including, or attempting to include, such provisions impact upon the dynamics of negotiations and the possibilities of reaching a settlement?

CMI researchers Astri Suhrke and Torunn Wimpelmann, with contributions from a UNDP consultant, Marcia Dawes, have prepared on a report for the World Bank and UNDP on the role of peace agreements in statebuilding. The report investigates to what extent peace agreements after 1990 have incorporated provisions for long term recovery. Five cases, Afghanistan, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guatemala and Mozambique are then discussed in detail, outlining the negotiations and the effect that peace agreements had on subsequent statebuilding efforts.

The report concludes that there can be no 'ideal' peace agreement independent of political factors and the context of negotiations. Whilst peace agreements can provide an important normsetting function for postwar reconstruction, provisions for long term statebuilding will only be effective to the extent that they rest on a political consensus and national ownership. International development actors can potentially make significant contributions to peace negotiations, provided their concerns are seen as germane to the issue at hand, and the agencies can offer case-specific capacity.

The report is also available on UNDPA's new website, the UN "Peacemaker":

Read the report: Peace Processes and Statebuilding: Economic and Institutional Provisions of Peace Agreements