In 2018, the UN Secretary-General launched his Action for Peacekeeping (A4P) initiative, to strengthen peacekeeping by promoting collective action by all peacekeeping stakeholders. This was accompanied by the Declaration of Shared Commitments, endorsed by more than 150 member states. In 2021, to accelerate progress on implementation of the Shared Commitments, the Secretary-General launched Action for Peacekeeping + (A4P+), which consists of seven priority areas and two cross-cutting themes.
In 2018, the UN Secretary-General launched his Action for Peacekeeping (A4P) initiative to strengthen peacekeeping by promoting collective action by all peacekeeping stakeholders. This was accompanied by the Declaration of Shared Commitments, endorsed by more than 150 member states. In 2021, to accelerate progress on implementation of the Shared Commitments, the Secretary-General launched Action for Peacekeeping + (A4P+), which consists of seven priority areas and two cross-cutting themes.
In order to support the effective implementation of the A4P+ priorities, and with generous support from the Kingdom of the Netherlands, IPI is undertaking a series of research and convenings around the A4P+ priorities, including publications on the following:
- Political strategies and the protection of civilians
- Accountability for Crimes Against Peacekeepers
- UN Peacekeeping and CPAS: Examining Progress and Lessons Learned
- Countering Misinformation and Disinformation in Peacekeeping Environments
- TCC Perspectives on Capabilities, Mindsets, and Accountability
- A4P+ Monitoring and Implementation
A4P+ priority 1: Collective coherence behind a political strategy
In 2015, the report of the High-Level Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO) recommended a fundamental shift towards the “primacy of politics” in peacekeeping, in which political solutions to conflict are to guide the design and deployment of UN peace operations. This commitment was further reiterated in the A4P initiative, Declaration of Shared Commitments, and A4P+ priorities, which call for “collective coherence behind a political strategy.”
While the primacy of politics remains relatively uninterrogated conceptually, it is premised on the principle that political solutions should serve as a “reference point” to a mission’s other areas of work, including the protection of civilians (POC). POC was also identified in the HIPPO report as a key obligation of peacekeepers and has been designated by the Security Council as a priority among mandated peacekeeping tasks.
Yet previous analysis has shown that missions often do not have clearly articulated political strategies to guide the design and implementation of POC or other areas of mission work. More generally, while a mission’s protection activities and political objectives may be complementary, there may also be areas of friction. The purpose of this research is to examine how missions’ political strategies can guide the design and implementation of POC, drawing on lessons from the peacekeeping missions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Sudan, Central African Republic, and Mali.
A4P+ priority 4: Accountability to peacekeepers
Since 2018, there has been an increase in the number of alleged perpetrators of crimes against peacekeepers and in the number of investigations and prosecutions at the national level. These include cases in countries hosting the missions that have been most-affected by crimes against peacekeepers since 2013, including the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Mali. These efforts have been supported by the UN Department of Peace Operations and field missions. Despite these efforts and the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2589 (2021), accountability for crimes against peacekeepers remains relatively low compared to the growing violence against them, and prosecution of crimes against peacekeepers has not received sufficient political attention.
This research is taking stock of progress and challenges related to the prevention, investigation, and prosecution of crimes against peacekeepers. It examines what can be done to advance the effective implementation of the A4P+ priority on “accountability to peacekeepers,” primarily at the national level with coordinated support from the Security Council, UN Secretariat, troop- and police-contributing countries, and donors, but also through complementary international mechanisms and non-judiciary mechanisms.
A4P+ priority 2: Strategic and operational integration
Since 2018, the UN Department of Peace Operations’ (DPO) Division for Policy, Evaluation and Training (DPET) has been rolling out the Comprehensive Planning and Performance Assessment System (CPAS) across all UN peacekeeping operations. CPAS sets out a framework for mission officials to interrogate how their operations impact stakeholders and processes in the country and whether these impacts are helping missions achieve their mandated priorities.
As part of this research project, IPI examined the rollout and implementation of CPAS between 2018 and 2022, as well as its impact on how missions deliver their mandates and improve their operations. IPI published its policy paper “UN Peacekeeping and CPAS: An Experiment in Performance Assessment and Mission Planning” in October 2022 and convened an event on this topic on October 27th.
A4P+ priorities 6 and 7: Strategic communications; and cooperation with host countries
Over the past few years, a growing barrage of disinformation has targeted UN peacekeeping operations. This includes false allegations that UN peacekeepers are trafficking weapons to armed groups, supporting terrorists, and exploiting natural resources. This disinformation makes it harder for peacekeeping operations to implement their mandates and has put the safety of peacekeepers at risk.
As part of this research project, IPI examined the rise in disinformation against the UN peacekeeping operations in the Central African Republic, Mali, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, how these peacekeeping operations have been addressing disinformation, and the challenges they have faced. IPI published an issue brief on this topic in November 2022.
A4P+ priorities 3 and 5: Capabilities and mindsets; and accountability of peacekeepers
Peacekeepers are often ill-equipped to mitigate the risks posed by violent extremism. This may be due to their real or perceived association with counterterrorism activities, as well as the risk that their presence increases attacks against civilians and mission personnel. IPI is therefore assessing troop-contributing countries’ perceptions of the operational shortcomings they face in responding to the threat of violent extremism, including concerns related to peacekeeper safety and the challenges of operating alongside counterterrorism actors.
There is significant demand to understand the UN’s progress in implementing the A4P+ priorities. Therefore, alongside the UN Department of Peace Operations’ internal monitoring, IPI is conducting its own independent assessment of the state of play, drawing on diverse perspectives from UN headquarters and field missions, as well as from member states.
777 United Nations Plaza, New York
