In Focus Article – When Peace Becomes a Transaction, Credibility Loses its Value

Interpeace was established under the auspices of the United Nations to accompany conflict-affected societies in building social contracts grounded in reconciliation, inclusivity, equality, justice, and non-violent means to manage disputes. Over the past three decades, our organisation has evolved in lockstep with the multilateral system by supporting, complementing, expanding, and utilising its institutions, agreements, networks, and values. The path has not been straight nor perfect, but it has led forward.

Today, we are witnessing a profound change in this trajectory. Multilateralism – the widely accepted operating system based on international mechanisms and shared rules – finds itself challenged and threatened, if not overridden. In its place, we are increasingly seeing approaches favouring transactionalism – ways of working defined by short-term interests benefitting the members of the transaction alone. Dialogues have become deals, mechanisms marketplaces, and agreements contracts.

Naming this change does not mean that peacebuilding, peace agreements, and reconciliation efforts as we have come to know them have been free of disparities and self-interest. They have not. However, the difference between multilateral and transactional approaches lies in their principles. A marketplace does not seek inclusive participation, local ownership nor long-term engagement. A transaction strives for returns instead of impact. In a marketplace, outcomes are owned by the highest bidder.

Durability and Credibility as Programmatic Foundations

Serving communities impacted by conflict has taught us that peace is not a quick win. It is the outcome of numerous steps that set cornerstones, strengthen foundations, build structures, and repair fractures. These steps lead forward, yet are often marked by setbacks. This is durability.

At the same time, our work bridging the gaps between affected communities and decision-makers has taught us that peace is not exclusive. It is based on shared values rooted in lived reality. This is credibility.

For us, durability and credibility are achieved through:

This Annual Report is a glimpse into how these principles manifest in practice. The examples featured in this report are highlights of work where peace was not the by-product of a transaction or a quick win in a zero-sum-game. For us as a peacebuilding organisation part of the multilateral system, peace is the never-ending endgame.

However, credibility and durability should not be mistaken for rigidity. As the structures created to protect fundamental rights and freedoms came under increasing strain, our organisation undertook a rigorous process to define our next strategic chapter. The resulting Strategic Framework 2026-2030 entitled Navigating Political and Civic Space – Peacebuilding in an Era of Heightened Instability is our compass to help us cut through the noise and strive for tangible impact in a time of strapped resources, expanding needs, and increasing challenges faced by the structure created to enable peace.

The Strategic Framework streamlines our work under three programmatic focus areas:

Each supported by two cross cutting themes:

Even if not explicitly stated, the above feed into the overarching goal of building trust and trustworthiness. We know that trust cannot be bought. Trust is not created through favours nor dependencies. It is earned. This applies to local, national, regional, and international contexts. Below are examples from practice.

Throughout the year, to prevent violence and transform conflict, we focused on building horizontal trust by strengthening social fabrics and healing within communities, whilst advancing vertical trust by enabling dialogue between communities and authorities.

In Guinea-Bissau, we focused on resolving conflicts between farming and herding communities by supporting community mediation activities across six localities. These mediation processes engaged more than 850 individuals and brought representatives of conflict parties together in a space managed by our local partner. Together, we supported the parties in gradually forming a profound understanding of their respective challenges and expectations through constructive, peaceful, and inclusive dialogues. The process resulted in, for example, formal and practical agreements on the sustainable management of shared resources. These efforts sowed the seeds of trust between rivalling communities, as well as the local institutions acting as interlocutors between the communities.

Trust also manifested in the work implemented under our Peace Responsive portfolio. Peace Responsiveness rests on the notion of shared responsibility: Peace is not built by peacebuilders alone – Conflicts are not perpetrated by conflict parties alone. By holistically shaping the Humanitarian, Development, Peace, and Climate Nexus and supporting actors to design programmes and interventions sensitive to direct and indirect conflict drivers, we supported interventions that enable trustworthy, constructive, and credible outcomes. The power of such interventions was seen in, for example, Rwanda, Burundi, Kenya, and Somalia, where we supported infrastructure initiatives enabling access to income generating resources, coupled with processes to jointly maintain these shared structures within communities. This multifaceted approach manifested in the delivery of durable, long-term economic dividends of peace.

Finally, to interlink theory with practice, our advocacy efforts sought to ensure that decisions made across levels reflect the realities of communities impacted by conflict. The goal of our diplomatic and policy engagements within multilateral and bilateral structures was to facilitate evidence-based outcomes that withstand the test of time – be it in daily encounters, political negotiations, or global decision-making tables.

This approach was at the centre of our work in Somalia, where we supported in the development of a National Peace Policy by engaging with 325 stakeholders – including women and youth. This broad, diverse, and meaningful participation was foundational for the legitimacy of the government-led peace processes and the measures taken to institutionalise collaboration across actors. Genuine inclusivity is at the heart of political credibility – and credibility at the heart of societal durability.

Accountability as an Operating Principle

For a peacebuilding organisation, we cannot rest our credibility on transactions. We build it on accountability. Accountability in turn demands transparency on the principles guiding our work.

Over the past year, we undertook an organisation-wide exercise to clarify how we do what we do and identify the principles that guide our work. Alongside our programmatic priorities, five foundational principles emerged:

These principles frame our decision-making, our engagements, and our actions. These are principles we hold ourselves accountable to.

While no process is flawless, some approaches are more effective, more resilient, and more capable of sustaining trust over time. This is where the value of peacebuilding within a multilateral framework lies: in the commitment to fair, inclusive, and accountable structures. These are credible principles and durable processes that are not up for sale.