More, Better, Faster: PeaceTech in Review (By Sheldon Himelfarb, PeaceTech Lab CEO)

This guest posts by Sheldon Himelfarb, PeaceTech Lab CEO, is in response to Jacob Lefton’s post “Scaling Peacetech – A Growing Conversation”.

In his blog post, reviewing the February 4th PeaceTech Summit in Washington DC, Build Peace’s Jacob Lefton does a great job of distilling a lot of complex ideas that have been presented on how best to scale peacetech. However, one particularly significant and controversial topic – namely the role of profit in achieving scale – deserves closer examination here.

First, some context: the PeaceTech Summit was a unique opportunity to bring together visionaries and pioneers in the emerging peacetech industry. With over 300 participants, panelists from Pakistan, Kenya, Nigeria, Brazil, Australia, DC, and Silicon Valley, and breakout sessions ranging from “Gaming to ScalePeace” to “Engineering Conflict Solutions at Scale,” it was certainly the most exciting undertaking in the PeaceTech Lab’s short history and we are grateful to all who made it possible.

With the success of the event, however, comes the ongoing challenge: how do we talk about the theme “Scaling Peacetech: More, Better, Faster” not as a tag line but rather as a modus operandi that underscores everything we in the PeaceTech Lab, and others in the field, believe and work towards? Lefton’s piece tees up the complexity by asking: “Who is invited to participate in industrial peacetech, and how do we ensure input from a broad range of peacebuilders and innovators?”

At the Lab, we firmly believe the voices of local peacebuilders are paramount to the success of scaling peacetech. Days before the Summit, we hosted a “Voices from the Field” Twitter Chat using the hashtag #scalepeacetech and were pleased by the participation of activists in Burundi, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and South Sudan. In addition, we were lucky to have iHub Nairobi Researcher Nanjira Sambuli with us on the opening panel, and the voices of other peacetech leaders from conflict countries represented throughout the day.

Lefton’s piece also highlights the important questions: “What does a peacetech company actually look like? How is it funded? Is profit for innovators a foundation of peacetech?”

Our vision of a thriving peacetech industry includes governments laying out seed money and awarding contracts for research and development. The resulting projects would attract investors, and businesses would discover overlapping interests with peacebuilding professionals. Profits would be realized in many cases, by leveraging the power of scale that comes with tech, data, and media work, creating a public-private win-win through more peaceful societies and sustainable economies.

There was one assertion in the piece, however, that was misleading: “For the PeaceTech Lab, the way to scale peacebuilding is through profit.” On the contrary, the Summit was designed to present an expansive array of scaling opportunities, some involving profit and many that did not. We showcased a non-profit peacetech accelerator being launched in Colorado to support in their own words “12 new startups that use technology to reduce violent conflict.” We applauded the work of Drexel University, this nation’s largest private college of engineering, for creating the first peace engineering degree program to help expand development of peacetech, among other goals. We listened to a panel of broadcasters from Nigeria, Pakistan and Netherlands with whom the Lab has recently signed agreements to co-develop peacebuilding media online and for broadcast.

In other words, the PeaceTech Lab is passionate in our belief that scaling peacetech and peacebuilding is a cross-sector undertaking that requires not-for-profit, government, and for-profit practitioners. We also believe that the for-profit sector has been woefully under-utilized — particularly now when low-cost, easy-to-access technology is changing the way information and capital flow. This new normal has unleashed unprecedented opportunities for social entrepreneurship in the use of tech, data and media for peace and prosperity.

For 2016 to be the year of truly transformative peacetech, we must, as Jacob Lefton suggests, employ laser-like focus on delivering impact faster “with more sustainable and broader reaching outcomes.” Media, data, and technology are important aspects of this goal, but to achieve scale requires we also get the people, partnerships, and processes right. To that end, the Lab will continue to work as a convener and strategic partner for businesses, non-profits, and peacebuilders alike, until #scalepeacetech goes from being a goal to being a given.

Continue the conversation. How do you scale peacetech?

Share this post!

Go Deeper: Cultural Strategy for Peacetech (by Jacob Lefton)

Note: I wrote this essay in part to help frame the arts program at Build Peace 2016. One of the questions I seek to answer is why arts and cultural work are integral to the development of peacetech processes. This year’s conference theme is Toward Transformation, with focused inquiries in political and socio-cultural transformation and ethics. It’s clear to me that arts and cultural work are a series of tools and methodologies that can broaden the engagement and outcome of transformation in political and socio-cultural arenas, and aid people in working through ethical questions. This essay takes the long view: arts and cultural work broaden and deepen transformative processes over long, generational periods of time—and we should plan for that.

Emerging technology continues to be a powerful tool in peacebuilding initiatives, but given a lack of cultural strategy, peacetech’s long-term impacts are unknown at best and destined to fail at worst. Understanding and engaging cultural contexts in peacebuilding processes is vital to their success—the renowned peacebuilding scholar, John Paul Lederach, says, “peace is seen not merely as a stage in time or a condition. It is a dynamic social construct.”

Peacetech is also a political force in its ability to flatten hierarchies and create the conditions for massive, nuanced citizen participation in governance. Use of Twitter and Facebook in the Arab Spring movement is one example. It is a stark reminder of the old adage, “politics follows culture.” As peacetech connects the halls of power to grassroots movements, cultural context is everything. Helena Puig Larrauri, co-director of BuildUp, characterizes these peacebuilding implementations as “civic engagement processes that deal with conflict.” Peacetech’s broadening influence on peacebuilding requires understanding and utilization of cultural strategy.

Continue reading

Cedaria: Blackout – Play for Peace!

This guest post is by Marie Madsen & Josep Garcia from Search for Common Ground.

Search for Common Ground (SFCG) has developed its first ever video game together with the game developer Matsuko. Cedaria: Blackout aims to provide youth in the Middle East with a platform to learn and practice how to manage conflict, solve community problems collaboratively, and understand the perspectives of the “other”. At a time of escalating violence in the region, gaming can be an effective and innovative tool to reach out to young people and promote the experience of non-violent conflict transformation ideas and concepts. SFCG aims to demonstrate that videogames can be a fun and creative way to engage more young people towards collaborative problem solving.

Cedaria: Blackout is a steampunk game set in an imaginary Middle Eastern context. The island of Cedaria used to be a centre for advancement and prosperity. However, the desire to dominate the island gave rise to trouble. Bonds between the different inhabitants shattered, fights ensued, skirmishes broke out around every corner and threatened to collapse the very foundations of the island. It is now the player’s job to help Cedaria leave behind its conflicts and regain peace and prosperity.

Screenshot from Cedaria: Blackout.

Screenshot from Cedaria: Blackout.

In regular video-games players normally fight against evil enemies in order to win. Here they will have the option to experience how it is also possible to win through cooperation with others. By reinforcing the values of cooperation and practicing negotiation and mediation skills, players will be able to change their attitudes towards conflict and learn some more constructive ways to deal with it in their communities. SFCG brings here a long experience in training and empowering communities with non-violent conflict resolution tools in a variety of contexts. Individual attitudes towards conflict and ways to deal with it on the personal level have a relevant impact on both community and national peacebuilding processes. Cedaria: Blackout aims at empowering a new group of individuals in these processes.

While SFCG has a long experience in peacebuilding, we are new in the gaming universe and therefore we kindly call on all peacebuilders and gamers out there to try out the game and give us your feedback! Cedaria: Blackout is not only to be played alone in front of a screen; we want to trigger discussions on alternative ways to address conflicts with the youth of the Middle East.

Download and give your feedback to Cedaria: Blackout.
Connect with us on Facebook!

We look forward to hearing from you!

Edited 10:56 CET March 07, 2016 with insight into SFCG’s experience in the field.

Scaling Peacetech – A Growing Conversation (by Jacob Lefton)

In February, I attended the Peacetech 2016 Summit, Scaling Peacetech: More, Better Faster, at the United States Institute of Peace’s PeaceTech Lab. They brought together visionaries and pioneers from a variety of industries and government to discuss how enterprises can become collaborators in growing the impact and reach of peacetech.

At Build Peace 2015, Sheldon Himelfarb, the president of the PeaceTech Lab, delivered a keynote “From Innovation to Industry,” making a case for scaling peacetech through industrial methodology.

The forward thrust of PeaceTech Lab’s proposal is that impact goals in peacetech can be reached and exceeded by using for-profit industry models in design and implementation of peacetech processes. This peacetech industry, built to rival other industrial complexes, would be aligned around social values to further peacebuilding objectives. At the Summit, Himelfarb presented supporting discussions, including presentations on the power of GIS, the peering economy, video games, and some innovative media companies, to name just a few. The Summit seemed to frame scaling in peacetech as a profit-motive problem. Tech entrepreneurs are less likely to be drawn to peacebuilding applications for their work, because the current peacetech funding models that exist are not attractive enough.

For the PeaceTech Lab, the way to scale peacebuilding is through profit. This approach to scaling, they argue, would build a bigger tent to bring in innovators who are drawn more strongly to fiscal growth than more traditional peacebuilders seem to be.

peacetech summit

As I attended the Lab’s summit, it seemed the Lab’s investigation on scaling peacetech through profit intersects with inquiries we hope to explore during Build Peace 2016: Towards Transformation. As we said earlier, Build Peace 2016 asks why we use technology to build peace. What are we trying to change, and what can technology affect in these processes? We defined three areas of inquiry: political transformation, socio-cultural transformation, and ethics. Profit models for scaling peacetech raise significant questions in all three, such as:

  • How do we scale peacetech in an effective manner that leads to true transformation? Is profit for innovators a foundation of peacetech?
  • How does industrial peacetech—the peace-through-profit model—work to allow under-resourced stakeholders to participate in on a level playing field?
  • There were few grassroots organizations mentioned, and fewer grassroots voices represented at the PeaceTech Summit. Who is invited to participate in industrial peacetech, and how do we ensure input from a broad range of peacebuilders and innovators?
  • If industrial peacetech is driven by traditional economic structures of capital and investment, how does it address or subvert inherent political and socio-cultural power dynamics associated with private enterprise today?
  • What does a peacetech company actually look like, structurally? Is the peering economy a key ingredient? Build Peace’s Rodrigo Davies looked into that last year when answering the question, ‘is AirBnB a civic tech company, a peacetech company, or neither?’

As we prepare for our three-day conference in Zurich in September, scalability is one of the forefront questions on our mind. Our focus at Build Peace is to deliver on impact faster with more sustainable and broader reaching outcomes. In Zurich, we will continue the conversation as we explore possibilities and pitfalls in various models of transformation through peacetech.

Do you have an answer to one of our questions, or a question of your own? Please share it with us.


We look forward to hearing your voice in the ongoing conversation.

Build Peace 2016: Towards Transformation

Peacebuilding is fundamentally about change, and most discussions about peacebuilding are really about how to change less than ideal situations into slightly better ones. Over time, answers to these questions have increasingly recognised that conflict might in fact contribute to positive political, cultural and societal processes. The change needed no longer revolves around resolving or managing conflict, but rather transforming it away from violence and destruction towards constructive change.

This perspective sees the different spheres of politics, culture and society as closely linked in conflict contexts and the potential subjects to such transformations. So while we explored whether there was a role for technology in peacebuilding in 2014, focusing more specifically on who and how in 2015, we propose to tackle the change question head on at Build Peace 2016 by asking why we use technology to build peace. What are we trying to change, and what can technology affect in these processes?

To cover the key facets of these complex questions, we identify three areas of enquiry as starting points to continue our discussion on how technology can contribute to building peace.

  • Political transformation Discussions on the role of technology in political processes have often focused on resistance – how activists mobilise against oppressive regimes (we heard from Dalia Haj-Omar and her experience in Sudan last year), for example. We propose to extend this conversation to explore whether and how technology can support wider inclusion in and engagement with political processes in peacebuilding. Does technology provide new avenues to engage with or challenge Track 1 negotiation processes? Or does it lead to alternative (or complementary) peace efforts, independent of political and institutional support? Can technologies closely associated with political processes be trusted in fragile or rapidly changing peacebuilding environments?
  • Socio-cultural transformation From current project data we know that the bulk of work that uses technology for peacebuilding focuses on mobilisation and engagement, with the aim of changing behaviours. But in order to contribute to peace, these transformations require reaching a certain critical mass. So what role can technology play in changing behaviours and cultural manifestations? And can technology facilitate processes to build this critical mass? And can it help us know when a critical mass has been reached?
  • Ethics Finally whether we are engaged in political or socio-cultural transformation, there are always values that guide how we go about this work. But technology brings about specific considerations. What ethical challenges does technology highlight in peacetech? What are the ‘side effects’ of using technology in peacebuilding and do they outweigh perceived benefits? How do we avoid the ‘white saviour industrial complex’ and the perpetuation of dominant power structures? Does the sourcing of the technologies we use matter? What values should guide a peacetech industry that seeks to constructively transform society?

Contribute your experience to Build Peace 2016

Ideas, projects and research that consider these questions will be the focus of debates at Build Peace 2016. We are busy curating keynote speakers, dialogues between experts and workshops. The 2016 conference will have more than double the hours of workshop or informal discussion time to create more spaces for making valuable connections or collaborative working. And we are also looking for contributions from all of you. There are different ways you can apply to share your work at the conference:

  • Short Talks are intended to present concrete projects that are in progress or completed. Presenters will speak for 5 minutes and then take questions from the audience.
  • The Build Peace Lab offers presenters a chance to explain a concrete project that is at the idea or design stage. Presenters will speak for 10 minutes and then receive feedback and questions from the audience for 20 minutes.
  • The Crowdsourced Arts project is a global exhibition of visual arts related to peacebuilding and technology, with a focus on the conference themes of political and socio-cultural transformation. We are looking for great photographs or other visual media suitable to reprint.
  • The Technology Fair is a space for people or organizations to present technology tools that can be used to build peace. The Fair will take place in the main conference space throughout the conference. We expect most people to visit the Fair during lunch and coffee breaks.

Join us at Build Peace 2016: what you need to know

  • You can buy conference tickets now: click here. Our standard registration procedure allows to buy up to five conference tickets. If you would like to order more, please contact Tonei to discuss your requirements.
  • If you are interested in sharing your work, you can apply here to deliver a Short Talk, present at the Build Peace Lab, have a stand at our Technology Fair or to submit a piece of artwork for our crowdsourced arts project. Applications are open until April 15, 2016.
  • Most of our ticket sales are used to fund those who could otherwise not afford to attend, and applications are also open until April 15, 2016 for our Travel Fund.
  • Successful applications for the Short Talks, Build Peace Lab, Travel Fund and volunteers will receive a free conference ticket. Unsuccessful applicants will be given the chance to buy conference tickets at the end of the selection process.

Dangerous Together: announcing the Build Peace Fellows program

At Build Peace 2015, we asked participants to be careful with each other so they could be dangerous together. What we love most about the community that has emerged around the Build Peace conferences is this ethos of collaboration, rigor, and learning to better build peace through technology. In this spirit, we are delighted to announce the Build Peace Fellows program.

We are looking for exceptional individuals who want to work at the intersection of peacebuilding and technology. Fellowships are awarded to individuals to work on a peacebuilding intervention to which technology is central. Over a year, Fellows will receive a full package of support, including training, mentorship, technology support and a small grant. Applications are now open until February 1, 2016.

Maybe you’re wondering if this is just another innovation challenge. We know innovation challenges are popular these days, but we think the Build Peace Fellows program is different. Here’s why: we’re not interested in innovation, in the next new technology or the next new tool, what we’re looking for is robust, impactful and participatory peacebuilding. The reason we focus on technology is that we believe technology tools can be game-changers in peacebuilding processes. Why? Because technology allows more people to participate in a conversation. It makes it harder for decision-makers to ignore community voices. And it can be game-changing tool for grassroots initiatives.

If this vision resonates with you and you have an idea for an intervention that uses technology to build peace, then we want to hear from you! Keep in mind that the one-year Fellowship is just the beginning. Our vision is to create a community of Fellows who embody the values of the Build Peace community. The Fellowship will be an opportunity to develop and implement an intervention in one year. But we all know peacebuilding processes take a lot longer than that. The Fellowship is a way to start a long-term partnership: you will become part of the Build Peace community, and we hope to find ways that you can continue to contribute to and benefit from the Build Peace community long-term.

We’re ready to be dangerous together. Are you?

Thinking about the Future at Build Peace 2015 (by Tessa Finlev)

The future, and in particular our orientation to the future, has big implications for the things we do today. Futures thinking is a growing discipline for thinking systematically about possible futures so that we can make better decisions today, take advantage of future opportunities, manage future challenges before they become a crisis, and begin building the future we all want, today.

Before diving into futures thinking it’s helpful to understand how you and the people you are working with feel about the future. Is the world naturally moving in a positive or negative direction? Are you able to influence the future, and build the world you want? Asking these questions helps reveal individual and group assumptions about the process of change, and the kinds of solutions or processes that will be most effective.

Read more

Tomorrow’s Peacebuilders & Build Peace 2016

The best entry in this year’s Tomorrow’s Peacebuilding competition that uses technology in an innovative way as part of their peacebuilding will win a scholarship to attend the ‘Build Peace 2016’ conference in Zurich, Switzerland, and become a Build Peace Fellow.

We are pleased to announce that the best entry to  this year’s Tomorrow’s Peacebuilders competition that uses technology in an innovative way as part of their peacebuilding will win a scholarship to attend the ‘Build Peace 2016’ conference as a Build Peace Fellow, benefiting from an opportunity to present their work and receive other support to use  technology to build peace. Full details of the Build Peace Fellowship will be announced in the Fall. Technology related entries will be assessed by the ‘Tomorrow’s Peacebuilders’ jury and the team at Build Peace to select the winner of this prize.

Build Peace brings together practitioners, activists,technologists and artists from around the world to share their experience and ideas on using technology for peacebuilding and conflict transformation. Read more about the conference here.

Tomorrow’s Peacebuilders is Peace Direct’s annual competition which recognises the very best emerging local peace organisations around the world. The three main prize winners will receive $10,000 and an invitation to the prize-winners’ event in London in December. The deadline for entries is 15 September 2015.

More information about the competition, and how to enter, is available here: http://www.peacedirect.org/tp/

Tomorrow-peacebuilders2015

Looking at the whole lifecycle of technological hardware to build peace (by Marianne Perez de Fransius)

Marianne Perez de Fransius is founder of Peace is Sexy & Peace Superheroes

“It seems to me that there’s a deontological question we have to address here: how can we keep talking about using technology to build peace while ignoring the very real conflicts that the development of this technological hardware produces? Whether it is the violence around the mining of coltan in DR Congo to make necessary parts for phones or the widening economic gap, a key early warning indicator, that is being created in Mozambique as a result of the extractive industry, to more and more technology taxing energy grids in many places, further disenfranchising some sectors of the population not to mention the harmful environmental impact and a host of other issues?” That is the question that I asked of the “Introducing Tech to Traditional Peacebuilding” panel on Saturday afternoon of the Build Peace 2015 conference.

Read more

Beyond Monitoring and Evaluation (by Matthew Levinger)

Matthew Levinger is Research Professor of International Affairs at the George Washington University. He directs the National Security Studies Program, an executive education program for senior officials from the U.S. government and its international partners, as well as the Master of International Policy and Practice Program at GW’s Elliott School of International Affairs. Before joining GW, he was Senior Program Officer at the United States Institute of Peace and Founding Director of the Academy for Genocide Prevention at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Complex adaptive systems require tight feedback loops, in order to adjust in an agile manner to new information and changing conditions in the environment. Yet many large institutions—governmental and intergovernmental agencies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and transnational corporations—are still organized as centralized hierarchies operating with industrial command-and-control mechanisms, including rigid protocols for Monitoring and Evaluation (M & E).

Read more