Nigeria - Strategic Conflict Assessment : Methodology, Key Findings and Lessons Learnt
The need to support a Strategic Conflict Assessment (SCA) was agreed by donors in December 2001, and supported by President Obasanjo. The central guiding principle was that the SCA process should be led by the national Institute for Peace and Confl...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Brief |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
World Bank, Washington, DC
2012
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2003/05/2637045/nigeria-strategic-conflict-assessment-methodology-key-findings-lessons-learnt-nigeria-strategic-conflict-assessment-methodology-key-findings-lessons-leanrt http://hdl.handle.net/10986/11300 |
| Summary: | The need to support a Strategic Conflict
Assessment (SCA) was agreed by donors in December 2001, and
supported by President Obasanjo. The central guiding
principle was that the SCA process should be led by the
national Institute for Peace and Conflict Resolution (IPCR),
in the Presidency. Local ownership and capacity building
were considered key to achieving credibility and
sustainability. Technical and financial support was provided
to IPCR and local stakeholders by some of Nigeria's
major international donors: DFID; UNDP; USAID; and the World
Bank, who formed an SCA Advisory Group to IPCR. The Advisory
Group proved to be a vital structure for collective
decision-making. This approach was chosen over the more
traditional single-donor approach to draw upon a wide range
of international expertise and experience, to share resource
costs and to mitigate political risk to donors. Donor
cooperation and collaboration meant that donors were able to
cover areas where partners may not have had the capacity or
mandate. This was the first time, globally, that a national
conflict assessment had ever been supported by a group of
donors. Conflict assessments by individual donors are often
not shared beyond the sponsoring donor. Where they are
shared, they are often edited to remove
"sensitive" parts, thus defeating the purpose of
the analysis and making it difficult for stakeholders and
other donors to benefit. |
|---|