The publication launch of the PMP report, Peacebuilding 2.0: Mapping the Boundaries of an Expanding Field, was held October 19th, at the United States Institute of Peace. The event kicked off with a welcome address by USIP President Jim Marshall and AfP President & CEO Melanie Greenberg, a stimulating dialogue with Dr. David A. Hamburg, as well as experts from related sectors, including Professor Necla Tschirgi, Joan B. Kroc Institute of Peace & Justice, University of San Diego; John Agoglia, IDS International;Hrach Gregorian, Institute of World Affairs; Jocelyn Kelly, Harvard Humanitarian Initiative; Sharon Morris, Mercy Corps; and Paul Williams, Public International Law and Policy Group.
Project Background
While the peacebuilding field has become far more cohesive, it has also rapidly expanded since its founding. Moreover, as a community we have not yet adequately defined which activities do or do not fall within the framework of peacebuilding and there has never been an inventory of the size, scope, economics and dynamics of the organizations and professionals actively engaged in peacebuilding.This project is designed to fill that void in order to establish a consensus on professional peacebuilding activities in the United States. AfP, in partnership with the Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace & Justice (IPJ) at the Kroc School of Peace Studies, University of San Diego, conducted a census of the present peacebuilding field, examining the field’s growth over the last ten years and projecting trends in the next four years.
Initial Report Findings
The PMP team conducted two surveys (one composed of AfP members and another for the larger peacebuilding community), reaching out to more than 140 organizations.
In the second survey, 85% of organizations identified their work as peacebuilding. However, interestingly, while the remaining organizations* did not identify as peacebuilders, 73% of this group stated that they currently have or have had peacebuilding programs.
The data suggest that peacebuilding itself can be perceived as both a distinct field of practice, and as a lens through which other fields view their work and develop programs, and this perception has implications for an organization’s activities on the ground.
The data findings have wide-ranging implications on the the way our community embraces its expanding nature.
* This group is rather small and only accounts for 15 total organizations, but provides interesting incentive for future study.
