Digital Pathways for Peace

Insights and lessons from a

global online consultation
 About this report
In March 2020, Peace Direct held a three‑day online
consultation with over 75 practitioners and academics across
the globe. Participants and guest contributors exchanged
insights and local experiences on the impact of digital
technology on peace and conflict, how local peacebuilders
incorporate digital technology in their responses to conflict,
and how they envision positive change in this new branch of
peacebuilding. We received more than 300 detailed comments
over 11 discussion threads. This report presents the findings
and recommendations from that consultation.

We would like to thank Dimitri Kotsiras as the main author

of this report. We would also like to thank Joel Gabri for his
written contributions. This report has been edited by Peace
Direct. The main sections of the report include contributions
from participants that took part in the online consultation.
Where quotes are anonymous, they are from participants
who preferred to keep their identities private for personal
and/or security concerns. The contents of this report are the
responsibility of Peace Direct. The text in this report should
not be taken to represent the views of any other organisation.

2 / Digital Pathways for Peace

Table of Contents
Acknowledgments 5
Abbreviations 5

Executive Summary 6
Key Insights 7
Recommendations 8

1. Introduction 9

Methodology 11

2. How digital technologies are impacting peace and conflict 13

2.1. Democratising peace 14
2.1.1. Newly empowered communities 14
2.1.2. A new form of accountability 14
2.2. ‘Digitisation’ of conflict and violence 15
2.2.1. Censorship and surveillance 15
2.2.2. Radicalisation and polarisation 16
Case Study: How the use of social media contributed to dehumanising Myanmar’s Rohingya 18

3. Tech for peace: an emerging field of practice 19

3.1. Operational advantages 20
3.2. Increasing visibility and participation 21
3.3. Potential for innovation 22
Case Study: HIVE Pakistan 22

4. Strategies for effective digital peacebuilding 23

4.1. Promoting peace through digital communication 24
4.1.1. Online peace messaging 24
Case Study: Wagiga Hadid and countering rumours in South Sudan 25
4.1.2. Digital storytelling 26
Case Study: Peacemaker 360 and youth‑led peacebuilding 27
4.2. Digital mobilisation and networking 28
4.2.1. Developing online peace constituencies 28
4.2.2. Platforms for dialogue and exchange 29
Case Study: Peace Direct’s Platform4Dialogue 30
4.3 Gathering data for conflict prevention 31
4.3.1. Crisis mapping and crowdsourcing 31
Case Study: Safecity’s and sexual violence in India 32
4.3.2. ‘Big Data’ and blockchain technology 33
4.4. The utility of ‘offline’ technology 34
How digital technologies can reduce the negative impacts of COVID‑19 35

Digital Pathways for Peace / 3

 5. Barriers and challenges around digital technologies for peacebuilders 36
5.1. Structural & Policy Barriers 37
5.1.1. Poverty and poor infrastructure 37
5.1.2. Digital literacy and marginalisation 37
5.1.3. Restrictive regulatory environments 39
5.2. Process and internal challenges 40
5.2.1. Ethical, security and privacy issues 40
5.2.2. Demonstrating effectiveness and impact 41
5.2.3. Sustainability of tech‑based peacebuilding 42

6. Pathways for collaboration 43

6.1. Promoting digital inclusion and accessibility 44
6.2. Strengthening civil society coordination 45
6.3. Reinforcing regulation and accountability 46

7. Conclusions & Recommendations 47

Appendices 50

4 / Digital Pathways for Peace

Acknowledgments
Peace Direct would like to extend a very special thanks to our participants for their
commitment and valuable inputs to this report, and for engaging proactively in the
online consultation with respect and without judgement. We would like to thank
in particular Julie Hawke, Lisa Schirch and Elsa Marie DeSilva for their invaluable
support as contributors and moderators during the online consultation.

Abbreviations
ACLED Armed Conflict Location Event Data P/CVE Preventing/Countering Violent
Extremism
AI Artificial Intelligence
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
AU African Union
SMS Short Message Service
CEWS Continental Early Warning System
TTT Turning the Tide
CSO Civil Society Organisation
UK United Kingdom
DRC Democratic Republic of Congo
UN United Nations
EWER Early Warning and Early Response
UNCTAD UN Conference on Trade and
GIS Geographic Information System
Development
GNWP Global Network of Women
UNESCO UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Peacebuilders
Organisation
GPS Geographic Positioning System
UNICEF UN Children’s Fund
ICT Information Communication
US United States
Technology
USIP United States Institute of Peace
IT Information Technology
VR Virtual Reality
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
YPS Youth, Peace and Security
MIDO Myanmar ICT for Development
Organisation
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology
NGO Non‑Governmental Organisation
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation
and Development
P4D Platform4Dialogue

Digital Pathways for Peace / 5

 Executive Summary
Digital technologies – electronic tools, software, platforms, systems and devices
that help generate, store and/or transfer data – are playing an increasingly vital role
in advancing peacebuilding activities around the world. Technological innovation
has been a powerful democratising force which has opened new avenues and spaces
for civic participation and collective action, empowering marginalised voices and
enhancing local accountability. Moreover, increased connectivity has led to the
development of powerful online communities, who are reshaping the social contract
between state and citizenry and are providing key opportunities to build more
inclusive and equitable societies.

At the same time, these same technologies are As peacebuilders place more importance on the
being employed by autocratic states and conflict use of digital technologies to sustain peacebuilding
actors for sophisticated methods of censorship, work in this midst of the Covid-19 pandemic,
surveillance and dis/misinformation, which are outstanding questions on how to best capitalise on
creating new divisions and inciting violence that can the opportunities for peace that digital technologies
manifest itself offline. Hate speech, recruitment for provide require further insight and knowledge-
terrorism, fake news, disinformation campaigns, sharing.
privacy breaches, and other challenges to peaceful
societies are increasingly dominating political and This report presents the findings of a global online
media narratives, reinforcing popular perceptions consultation Peace Direct held with peacebuilding
of technology as untrustworthy and dangerous. practitioners and academics who employ digital
This has also led to unhelpful or harmful legislation technologies in their work. The purpose of
and regulation around the use of technology that this exchange was to unpack different local
are further exacerbating existing ‘digital divides’ perspectives on the role that technology plays in
and inhibiting the rights and freedoms of individual peacebuilding, to share learnings, experiences and
users and civil society actors. effective tech-based peacebuilding approaches,
and to contribute to policy and practice
In response to these dynamics, the use of discussions around the effective use of technology
technology for peace, otherwise known as for peace. The result was a robust discussion
‘peacetech’, has grown in prominence over the that sheds further light on the intersection
last decade and has generated innovative tech- between technology and peacebuilding, and
based solutions to tackle drivers of conflict and demonstrates the adaptive and inventive ways that
insecurity. In effect, digital technologies provide peacebuilders continue to prevent and resolve
peacebuilders with user-friendly, efficient and conflict – both online and offline.
scalable tools that not only improve programming
and communications, but can also create
alternative infrastructures for peace – challenging
dominant conflict narratives and fostering positive
communication and social cohesion between
conflict groups. Yet despite this progress and
growing interest from policymakers and donors,
many questions remain and are still being debated
around the strategic use of tech for peace.

6 / Digital Pathways for Peace

Key findings
The three-day consultation explored the novel and Despite the benefits that technology provides,
innovative ways that local peacebuilding practitioners local peacebuilders in fragile and conflict-affected
and academics advance peace through technology. contexts continue to face a number of intersecting
Though not exhaustive, below are a range of effective issues that are creating digital divides and
tech-based strategies employed by peacebuilders reproducing fault lines which can lead to violence –
which have been identified in this report: ultimately undermining their peacebuilding work:

• Peacebuilders are using digital technologies to • Structural barriers such as poverty, weak
enhance their data collection capabilities by infrastructure and low digital literacy – critical
crowdsourcing information and utilising mobile enablers for socio-economic transformation
and satellite technologies to map out detailed – are preventing large segments of the global
conflict trends and hotspots on the ground. This population from accessing digital technologies.
has vastly improved early warnings systems, Poor infrastructure development, prohibitive
enabling systematic and near real-time data to costs and a lack of accessibility and training have
be shared, which has greatly reduced the time contributed to widening social inequalities that
needed for critical responses. are leaving many behind.
• These digital divides are disproportionately
Social media platforms, blogs, podcasts and online affecting marginalised groups such as women
forums are being used by peacebuilders as vehicles and minorities. Underlying gendered norms and
of peace promotion, enabling rapid and sustained power imbalances replicated in online spaces
engagement through online peace messaging and have translated into continued harassment
digital storytelling. These techniques, bolstered and targeting by spoilers and trolls, further
by multimedia capabilities, have built awareness undermining these groups’ representation in
around peace in a systematic way by connecting online platforms.
users to relatable themes and individuals with lived • Restrictive regulatory and policy environments
experiences of conflict. – characterised by censorship, surveillance and
sporadic internet shutdowns – are threatening
• Peacebuilders have also been able to tap into users’ freedom and rights, and are contributing
large and powerful online communities to to shrinking civil society space.
mobilise for peace and drive social change. • The use of technology for peace comes with
This is bolstered by open and inclusive spaces complex ethical, privacy and security challenges
for exchange and knowledge-sharing, which that can replicate power imbalances and conflict
have helped develop new partnerships and dynamics in digital environments. Preventing this
opportunities for collective analysis and action. requires testing assumptions and determining
• Peacebuilders are increasingly utilising the appropriateness of introducing technology in
advanced technologies in their peacebuilding a conflict- and context-sensitive manner.
interventions, including using ‘big data’, artificial • Evidence gaps and sustainability issues around
intelligence (AI) and blockchain programmes to the use of technology for peacebuilding require
collect data, as well as interactive technologies further documentation around potential design
such as virtual reality and videogames to more biases, as well as staff training and capacity-
actively engage people in peacebuilding. building, to improve the overall impact of tech-
• Peacebuilders have adopted a “hybrid” based peacebuilding interventions.
approach in their activities, marrying online and
offline technologies to maximise their reach
and minimise risks of exclusion and counter-
productive programming. Their adeptness in
switching between analogue and digital tools has
made them adaptable to difficult environments
and tuned in to local realities.

Digital Pathways for Peace / 7

 Recommendations
For governments and international bodies For donors, funders and civil society

• Promote digital literacy and e-governance • Increase support for tech-based peacebuilding
programmes to support digital inclusion in initiatives at the local level. Donors should
online spaces and in tech-based peacebuilding provide material support and training to local
activities. Governments and international bodies civil society which would enable effective tech-
should develop accessible e-governance and based peacebuilding initiatives to scale up in
digital literacy programmes that will support size. Flexible funding can help to develop staff
online civic participation and educate users on capacity and digital literacy while covering
data privacy and healthy digital environments. various licensing, data storage and server costs.
These programmes should also include regional
language groups to provide greater access to • Document and analyse the applications of digital
local communities around the world. technologies in conflict-affected settings, with
lessons captured and shared effectively. It is vital
• Strengthen human rights-compliant regulatory that civil society actors and donors tackle M&E
practices on digital platforms. Governments design biases behind tech-based solutions and
and technology companies should ensure that provide effective solutions to the issues faced
any regulation balances protecting individuals’ by peacebuilders and beneficiary communities
sensitive data and preventing the prevalence of using technology, more in line with a user-
misinformation, hate speech and inflammatory centred and participatory approach.
messages. Government and private sector
initiatives to improve transparency and • Develop and strengthen online civil society
accountability around content regulation networks to expand effective peacebuilding
should be done in consultation with human campaigns and outreach. Where civil society
rights experts and peacebuilding experts, who organisations can rally behind a unified agenda,
are best placed to work around the challenges they can show their collective strength in order
of specifically defined hate speech and to elevate peacebuilding in the digital space.
inflammatory language. In addition, resources Collective action can strengthen alternative
must be provided for stakeholders who cannot narratives and help foster a wider digital culture
afford or cannot access the consultations. of peace. Donors should strengthen and support
such efforts as well as the civil society networks
behind them.

8 / Digital Pathways for Peace

Greg Funnell

1. Introduction

Digital technologies – electronic tools, software, systems and devices that can
help generate, store and/or transfer data – have fundamentally changed how we
interact with our world. In many ways, the so‑called ‘Digital Revolution’ has been
a democratising force; new online platforms and Information and Communication
Technologies (ICTs) have proven essential in connecting people across borders and
bridging cultural divides. In turn this has helped to facilitate new avenues for civic
participation and engagement by providing anyone with powerful tools to create
and share data in unprecedented and transformative ways.1

Digital Pathways for Peace / 9

 The spread of these technologies in fragile With the aforementioned in mind, new digital
and conflict affected contexts has also been pathways for change and the issues that underpin
accompanied by major social, economic and them present a critical opportunity to build
political shifts. Newly empowered communities more inclusive and democratic societies and
and an active global civil society are utilising contribute to a more effective security and peace
emerging technologies to challenge traditional framework. The transformational effect that
power structures and re‑shape their cultures and technology has had in the peacebuilding landscape
societies. The wave of citizen‑led protests that is becoming increasingly clear: from data‑driven
sprung up around the world in 2019 capitalised on interventions used by civil society organisations
the ubiquity of mobile devices and the increasing (CSOs) to improve peacebuilding, humanitarian
use of encrypted messaging apps and social media and peacekeeping responses, to the innovative
platforms to rapidly mobilise. Meanwhile, ‘hashtag’ ways that technology has empowered localised
activism and online campaigns have emboldened conflict management efforts, digital technologies
and strengthened the international climate change can have the potential to effect lasting change
movement, and technologies are helping refugees to the peacebuilding space. Significantly,
around the world to connect with each other and the United Nations (UN) has recognised the
collectively amplify their claims to political and transformative potential of technology in its
economic rights.2 Strategy on New Technologies (2018), which claims
that without “stepped up, smart and responsible
Despite this potential for positive change, digital use of technology”, the UN will fail to reach its
technologies are not inherently benevolent; they Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and will
are also used to foment divisions, inspire fear miss important opportunities to prevent conflict
and incite violence. Deliberate disinformation and sustain peace.
and propaganda campaigns on social media have
targeted electoral processes and sown a deep As the world continues to adapt to the impact of
mistrust in governing institutions.3 Online hate the COVID‑19 pandemic, the importance of digital
speech inciting violence played a role in the technologies to sustain peacebuilding work has
genocidal actions taken against the Rohingya become more important than ever. It is clear that
community in Myanmar,4 and new surveillance digital technologies cannot be a panacea for the
techniques are being used by repressive regimes challenges facing peacebuilders on the ground,
worldwide to monitor dissent and crackdown but how can we capitalise on the opportunities
on digital activists and protests.5 This is not to for peace that they can provide? How can we
mention the ongoing online recruitment tactics of effectively support and engage the growing number
extremist groups and the serious privacy and ethical of tech‑based peacebuilders to tackle the issues
issues that permeate across the digital space. presented by these new technologies in the digital
Finally, complex and intersecting ‘digital divides’ space? What needs to happen to ensure that
present major barriers to digital access, which are technology is used responsibly to mitigate and
contributing to widening social inequalities that are resolve conflict and sustain peace?
leaving many behind.
To tackle these questions, Peace Direct convened
a three‑day online consultation in March 2020 to
explore the diverse and innovative ways that local
peacebuilders and practitioners are capitalising
on new digital technologies and advancing the
emerging field of digital peacebuilding. The
insights from this consultation form the basis of
the analysis and recommendations developed in
this report.

10 / Digital Pathways for Peace

Methodology

The findings and analysis in this report are based on discussions that were held
during an online consultation that took place on Platform4Dialogue (P4D) from
17‑19 March 2020. Over 75 participants were invited to contribute to a series of
online, text‑based discussions, exploring the impact of digital technologies on peace
and security issues, and delving into civil society challenges, opportunities and
support mechanisms needed to deliver sustainable peace through the responsible
use of technology.

Digital Pathways for Peace / 11

 Participants were selected via purposive sampling, Outline of the Report
considering the basis of their experience in
peacebuilding and digital technologies. Special Section 2 looks at how digital technologies are
attention was paid to the importance of having a impacting peace and security, both in terms of
gender balance and ensuring a wide coverage of current conflict dynamics and how they have
countries and continents, as well as experiences democratised the peacebuilding space. Section
at both the local, national and international level, 3 outlines the emerging ‘peacetech’ field and its
both from a practitioner and academic standpoint. inherent benefits for peacebuilding work. Section
In addition to this selection process, Peace Direct 4 explores effective digital strategies used by local
approached several guest experts directly to peacebuilding practitioners to mitigate conflict.
contribute and moderate certain discussion threads. Section 5 focuses on the barriers and challenges
that come with using digital technologies, and
Throughout the consultation, participants emphasises the structural, process and internal
responded to questions posed in each discussion issues confronting local peacebuilders. To tackle
thread as well as points raised by other participants. these, Section 6 highlights some important pathways
For contributions that were deemed sensitive, for collaboration to improve the use of digital
participants were given the opportunity to post technologies for peacebuilding.
anonymously. All discussions were held in a
password protected area of the P4D platform. The final section concludes that digital
Quotes from participants are illustrative of the peacebuilders are making important advances
perspectives raised during the consultation, and a towards peace, preventing and responding to
small number of quotes were subject to minor edits conflict in novel and innovative ways that show
for clarity and readability. All participant quotes much promise. Though essential steps are needed
within this report were given explicit consent to be to tackle the ‘digital divide’ by promoting the
publicly quoted. equitable and inclusive use of technologies, there
are clear and effective digital pathways for peace
The case studies in this report were based on select that should be strengthened and supported.
participants’ contributions in the online consultation.
Follow‑up interviews and email correspondence N.B. A glossary of key terms and concepts
were held with those participants to develop the case used throughout the report is included in the
studies with their explicit consent. appendices.

12 / Digital Pathways for Peace

Safecity

2. How digital technologies are

impacting peace and conflict

In many ways, digital technologies are a double‑edged sword. They can empower
people to create meaningful opportunities for change, they can enable marginalised
groups to participate in activities equally, and can be used by citizens to hold
governments and power holders to account. However, these same technologies
can strengthen the ability of those perpetuating conflict to engage in sophisticated
censorship and surveillance, and disrupt and divide communities with dangerous
consequences. Indeed, digital technologies are increasingly a powerful force that is
fundamentally altering both peace and conflict dynamics.

Digital Pathways for Peace / 13

 2.1. Democratising peace Furthermore, the decentralised nature of digital
platforms has enabled previously marginalised
Rapid technological innovation has helped groups to claim agency and proactively engage
democratise the role of non‑state actors in with one another in positive ways. Women are
promoting peace. By decentralising the flows of utilising digital tools and platforms to organise
information, digital technologies have opened up social movements and tackle gender inequality;8 for
access to global networks for ‘ordinary’ citizens, instance, Afghan women and diaspora organisations
enabling them to shape new narratives. Open have used social media platforms including Twitter
access to digital media, satellite imagery and data to engage government stakeholders on women’s
processing software has equipped citizens with a inclusion in the Afghan peace process. Likewise,
wide array of tools that were once only available to youth are accessing digital platforms to develop
large organisations and governments. In turn, these their civic identities and express views that they are
new horizontal interactions have shifted power not afforded in traditional civic spaces,9 supported
away from traditional authorities,6 paving the way by the Youth, Peace and Security (YPS) agenda.
for a more inclusive, equitable and participatory
global society that empowers local voices and As ‘ordinary’ people act as both creators and
increases accountability. consumers, they can facilitate a two‑way
communication that not only increases the spread
of information, but also provides opportunities
2.1.1. Newly empowered communities to engage in the public realm and enhances the
possibilities for collective action (see section
Digital technologies have made it much easier 4.2.1. for further details).10 As such, local citizens
for individuals who are usually ‘beneficiaries’ of have been able to reclaim space and agency in
peace initiatives to “engage and amplify their shaping their collective future. Lumenge Lubangu
own initiatives for peace, quite independent from (Democratic Republic of Congo, DRC) posited that:
outside interventions.”7 Indeed, global information
flows have flattened; information can now also “With new approaches through the
be transmitted horizontally from peer‑to‑peer, as evolution of technology, the power of the
well as transmitted to institutions in a bottom‑up people by the people has resulted in the
approach. Participants in the consultation noted democratization of peacebuilding and has
that this horizontal shift in communication has enabled the people to experience new
equalised the playing field between traditional concrete realities.”
authorities and ordinary citizens. Elly Maloba
(Kenya) explained that governments no longer have
the monopoly over ‘intelligence’, while Constantine 2.1.2. A new form of accountability
Loum (Uganda) said:
Digital technologies are helping to fundamentally
“No one has a monopoly in the use of DTs alter the social contract between state and
[digital technologies]; anyone can use them citizenry, providing new possibilities for conflict
to mobilise for the force of good in society.” transformation at the local level. With most people
able to take part in creating and disseminating
information, citizens have taken it upon themselves
to gather evidence and report on incidents of
violence and human rights violations. Chinwe
Ogochukwu Ikpeama (United Kingdom/Nigeria)
explained that:

14 / Digital Pathways for Peace

 “Citizens now report news from the comfort 2.2. ‘Digitisation’ of
of their mobile and digital devices, which conflict and violence
is invariably transmitted to the public.
Information on things that would have
otherwise been delayed or missed are now While digital technologies have cemented new ways
easily accessed. Digital technology has of promoting civic participation and engagement,
given people a voice and created greater the use of these technologies has not been able to
insight to unfolding events worldwide.” circumvent some of the imbalances and centralising
forces that are replicated in the online space. Lassi
This participatory approach to reporting has played Vasanen (Finland) explained that:
an important role in shaping alternative narratives
and prompting viral social media campaigns and “Though social media is often seen as a
mass protests against authorities, forcing some decentralising factor, its strategic use can
governments to change their behaviour. Wonder lead to the opposite.”
Phiri (Zimbabwe) stated that:
Digital technologies can be powerful instruments
“The concept of citizen journalism is that enable greater civic participation and
having the effect of forcing government engagement, but they can be as equally powerful in
authorities to restrain from their actions the hands of conflict actors, spoilers and autocratic
as they never know who is recording governments. Authoritarian governments are adept
them and this can dent the image of the at using sophisticated methods for censorship and
government.” propaganda,11 restricting civil society space and
undermining grassroots mobilisation. Moreover,
Consultation participants provided numerous disinformation and polarisation are becoming
examples of how digital technologies have shaped more prevalent in online public forums and social
and sustained social movements around the media platforms, creating new divisions and inciting
world. Jane Esberg (United States, US) explained violence that can sometimes manifest itself offline.
how protests against corruption in Venezuela
relied on WhatsApp, while Adewale Bakare
(Nigeria) highlighted the example of the ongoing 2.2.1. Censorship and surveillance
Hong Kong protest movement that has gained
international sympathy and solidarity through Most digital technologies are not self‑regulatory;
social media. Richard Ndi (Cameroon) further they can be utilised by conflict actors
highlighted how social media has shone a light on a and authoritarian regimes in fragile and
little‑acknowledged conflict: conflict‑affected contexts to push their propaganda,
centralise control and undermine grassroots
“Due to the role of social media, the mobilisation. Repressive states have used tactics
international community is now putting like internet shutdowns, propaganda campaigns
its lenses on Cameroon to ensure that the and surveillance tools powered by Artificial
conflict is resolved through a mediation Intelligence (AI) to monitor and predict actions of
process that is accepted by both parties to potential dissidents.12 As the space for civil society
the conflict.” is shrinking in many contexts, peacebuilders and
human rights defenders are also being targeted
by state‑sponsored spyware that enables remote
surveillance of their devices. For instance, Amnesty
International has reported numerous cases of
state surveillance using hacking tools like NSO
Group’s Pegasus platform to harvest human rights
defenders’ personal data.13

Digital Pathways for Peace / 15

 This increases the risk of protest and dissent, It is important to note that while these strategies
discredits state opposition and enables the state are often employed by autocratic states, more
to restrict access and mobility of individuals or governments have started engaging in forms
communities who try to mobilise for change. of censorship and surveillance with the stated
Valentina Baú (Australia) explained that: aim of protecting communities and ensuring
good governance. For instance, the increased
“The censorship imposed by governments use of surveillance technologies to combat the
on digital media platforms carries serious COVID‑19 pandemic, including adopting mobile
public access limitations to the internet location tracking programmes, has raised alarms
and harsh violations of information about the risks to human rights and the fear
rights for citizens. Moreover, these same that unnecessary surveillance measures will be
platforms are being used by governments introduced under the guise of public health.15 As
to circulate propaganda messages. This states continue to collect data on their citizens,
means that while the introduction of digital ongoing issues around the protection of individual
platforms can improve political action and rights, the work of civil society and the balance
participation among citizens, it also opens up between community safety and security, most
opportunities for repression and surveillance of which are unresolved, highlight the potential
from the state.” dangers and ethical dilemmas of ‘digitising’ too
rapidly (see section 5.2 for details).
While in some contexts these actions are done
overtly, with the state diametrically opposed to its
citizenry, shifts towards stronger surveillance and 2.2.2. Radicalisation and polarisation
censorship are often more subtle. A clear strategy
taken by many states is to adopt legislation that Digital technologies can mobilise engagement
restricts the use of digital technologies, while and participation in violent and extremist groups.
employing these same technologies to control Criminal and terrorist activities are often conducted
or curb digital access in the name of security and under the radar through obscure websites
good governance.14 For instance, Ada Ichoja Ohaba (including in the ‘Dark Web’), but their messages are
(Nigeria) explained that in Nigeria a proposed bill on also amplified in social media channels where videos
hate speech is being used as a pretext to quell dissent: of executions and violent crimes can be broadcast
to a large audience and go viral.16 Likewise, though
“Most people who are tagged as users of terrorist recruitment campaigns largely rely
‘hate speech’ are most often opponents of on offline interactions,17 extremist groups are
the ruling party, or citizens interested in increasingly adept at using online tools to expand
criticising areas in which the government their recruitment of foreign and local fighters –
isn’t working properly.” this is exemplified by the Islamic State’s ability to
recruit 40,000 foreign nationals from 110 countries
Qamar Jafri (Australia) confirmed this through effective social media campaigns.18 More
potential threat: generally, digital technologies have also enabled
people who are physically removed from conflict to
“Careful legislation is important regarding participate in it without immediate risk.19 Jacqueline
online hate speech because this forum Lacroix (US) stated that:
may also be used by regimes to restrict
freedom of expression and civil society “As is the case with most innovative tools,
voices against human rights abuses by the bad actors inevitably exploit digital platforms
regime.” for malignant purposes – hate speech, online
harassment and doxing, and the use of these
platforms to recruit and perpetuate violent
extremism.”

16 / Digital Pathways for Peace

The presence and success of these spoilers has

ScratchEd team
been bolstered by the very structure and design
of digital platforms. Algorithms play an important
and obscure role in filtering and determining
what information to expose to an individual, often
prioritising content that has been accessed before
instead of providing divergent views and insights.20
In fact, a recent internal investigation on Facebook’s
algorithms revealed that they “exploit the human
brain’s attraction to divisiveness.”21 In turn, these
“filter bubbles” limit people to a narrowed and
biased worldview, reinforcing pre‑existing beliefs
and thereby polarising public opinion. This can
exacerbate feelings of marginalisation among
disaffected individuals and can spur them into
action. Chinwe Ogochukwu Ikpeama (UK/Nigeria)
explained that:

“The use of digital technology has invariably

created a ‘digital separation’ which can be
seen on various social media platforms.
[Spoilers] use these technologies to mobilize
marginalized groups to action due to
already existing mistrust. Likewise, digital
technology has also been used to counter
such divisive narratives, but not on the
same scale as the perpetrators.”

A compounding factor is the circulation and

prevalence of untrustworthy information in
vulnerable online environments, which can
sow divisions between online and ‘offline’
communities, spread fear and anger or incite
violence against a certain group. Facebook
acknowledged in a public apology to the Sri
Lankan government that disinformation and
incendiary content on its platforms factored “The information contained in rumours is
in the violence that erupted during the 2018 not necessarily false, but rather unofficial in
anti‑Muslim riots.22 Likewise, minority Shia the sense that the truth they express may
Muslims in Pakistan have been blamed on Twitter be that in which the group wants to believe,
for importing the COVID‑19 virus from Iran, which is a sufficient criterion to make it
which has led to an increase in inter‑communal ‘true information’.”
tensions both online and offline.23
Alarmingly, false information of this kind does not
A well‑crafted message can emulate a legitimate require sophisticated digital tools to spread and
person‑to‑person interaction, spreading false can be conducted in relatively low‑tech digital
information through a rumour that is perceived as environments to great effect. It largely relies
credible and plausible.24 This was acknowledged by on existing fault lines within a society and the
consultation participants, with Lumenge Lubangu widespread use of digital platforms to spread false
(DRC) stating that: information at an alarming rate.

Digital Pathways for Peace / 17

 Case study: How the use of social media contributed to
dehumanising Myanmar’s Rohingya community

Facebook has had a tremendous success in against minority groups including Rohingya
Myanmar, where the majority of its 20 million Muslims. This drastically increased in 2017 and was
internet‑connected users equate Facebook with bolstered by a systematic propaganda campaign
the internet.25 Despite being a latecomer to the that had been supported by members of Myanmar’s
internet revolution, Myanmar saw mobile phone military.28 Made‑up stories were narrated on
penetration rates grow exponentially, and most Facebook pages, claiming that Rohingya Muslims
users’ first experience of internet technology was were stockpiling weapons in mosques to attack
on their smartphone using Facebook. The social the Buddhist population and that Buddhism faced
media app often came pre‑loaded with new phones an existential threat, calling for decisive action
and was promoted via a ‘Free Basics’ programme against the Rohingya.29 By August 2017, a military
that removed data charges for using the app and crackdown against a Rohingya rebel group sent
generated free news content.26 As a result, most hundreds of thousands of Rohingya Muslims fleeing
internet users in the country relied primarily on across the border to Bangladesh.
Facebook as their main source of information.
In the aftermath of the crisis, an investigation by
Despite this exponential growth in internet usage, the UN determined that the Facebook platform
digital literacy has remained very low with most played an important role in enabling the spread
users unable to verify or differentiate content, of hate speech against the Rohingya. Under fire
including real news from misinformation.27 by the media and policymakers, Facebook later
Moreover, the liberalisation of media enabled commissioned its own report, Human Rights
divisive voices to foment ethnic and religious Impact Assessment: Facebook in Myanmar, which
conflict on social media, proliferating dangerous corroborated that Facebook’s platforms (including
rumours and hate speech against minority and WhatsApp, Messenger, Facebook and Instagram)
religious groups, chief among them the Rohingya were used by conflict actors in Myanmar to incite
community. Nationalist extremist groups such violence against the Rohingya community living
as the 969 Movement and the Association for there. Facebook admitted guilt for its lacklustre
the Protection of Race and Religion (known as response before and during the crisis, and hired
Ma Ba Tha) were able to capitalise on platforms hundreds of native speakers and reviewed
like Facebook to pursue their anti‑minority and their policies to better combat hate speech and
anti‑Muslim agenda. dehumanising language.30 Despite these measures,
hate speech has continued in Myanmar and fears
Over years, Facebook users were continuously remain that the remaining half million Rohingya still
exposed to a steady stream of hateful content living in the country are at risk of further atrocities.

18 / Digital Pathways for Peace

 Greg Funnell
3. ‘PeaceTech’: an emerging
field of practice

The use of digital technologies in peacebuilding work is not a novel phenomenon.

In the mid‑1990s, community centres in North Belfast ran mobile phone networks
to counter rumours and keep communities connected during stretches of sectarian
violence.31 Fahamu, an African social activism organisation, pioneered ‘e‑advocacy’
in 2004 by organising widespread social justice campaigns using mobile text
messaging (SMS) technology.32 And the importance of data collection for conflict
prevention gained prominence in the early 2000s with intergovernmental initiatives
such as the African Union’s (AU) Continental Early Warning System (CEWS).33

Digital Pathways for Peace / 19

 The field of technology for peacebuilding, 3.1. Operational and
colloquially known as ‘peacetech’, has been programmatic advantages
growing steadily in importance as breakthroughs
in technological innovations, from the internet to
ICTs, started to influence the periphery of security To many consultation participants, a big part of
and peacebuilding.34 With the UN placing more this shift to digital technologies has to do with
importance in capitalising on the ‘data revolution’ the inherent operational benefits that technology
in its post‑2015 development agenda, many provides. Particularly so in helping to overcome
actors have taken to utilising digital technologies logistical, financial and communication barriers
as a central component of their peacebuilding that have traditionally impeded the effectiveness
work. This is evidenced by the establishment of of peacebuilding programmes. As Jacqueline
important organisations such as the US Institute Lacroix (US) stated:
of Peace’s (USIP) PeaceTech Lab, tech‑focused
peace research centres in Stanford, Harvard and “On a very basic level, technology makes it
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), as possible to connect directly with communities
well as hundreds of other tech‑related initiatives, affected by conflict, which would have
including Build Up , Peace Direct’s own Peace previously required someone in the field and
Insight platform and the Toda Peace Institute’s would have faced much higher costs (both
peacetech research programme.35 Likewise, monetarily and in terms of time) and risks.”
the ICT4Peace Foundation was established to
champion the use of ICTs for peacebuilding and More specifically, Elly Maloba (Kenya) highlighted
works closely with the UN to strengthen its the utility of technology in enhancing project
capacities to map, share and use data across its management and accountability, especially when it
various agencies and locations.36 comes to financial management issues in the field:

Though tech‑based interventions have flourished “Out in the field, digital technology was
over the past decade, the field is still developing very helpful in ensuring accountability of
and has yet to become mainstream in the project funds. Hitherto participants to
peacebuilding space.37 Beyond the operational activities would sign attendance lists and
advantages that inherently come with digital reimbursement forms before receiving hard
technologies (see section 3.1. below), many cash. When we started using mobile money
questions remain around the strategic use of these transfers directly to recipients’ phones,
technologies in peacebuilding work. With the it made it easier to audit activity‑based
space technology inhabits in peacebuilding still in workplans and funding. This sealed many
flux, ambiguities around roles and boundaries are loopholes for financial management.”
being debated and negotiated.38
Likewise, the consultation highlighted how digital
technologies have facilitated data collection and
risk management in programme implementation
and to peacebuilders themselves. Contantine Loum
(Uganda) emphasised the ease in which information
can be sourced and disseminated (see section 4.3. for
examples), while Pradeep Mohapatra (India) recognised
its utility in mitigating, adapting and transferring risks.
Ada Ichoja Ohaba (Nigeria) added that:

“Digital technologies have helped us record

positive impacts as they have reduced the
risk we face as field workers because we can
get early warning signals from conflict‑prone
communities before going into the field.

20 / Digital Pathways for Peace

3.2. Increased visibility “In my work with PeaceTech Lab developing
and participation lexicons of hate speech in Libya and Yemen,
we would not have been able to reach nearly
as diverse a group of respondents as we
While the operational benefits of using technology did without the use of technologies ranging
in peacebuilding programmes are clear, a key value WhatsApp and phone calls to Google
that civil society actors have placed on digital Forms and other online tools. […] The use of
technologies is the ability to expand their audiences technologies greatly enhanced the overall
and strengthen the visibility of local peacebuilding. scope of the project and the geographic
Chrisitan Cito Cirhigiri (Belgium) said, for instance: reach.”

“Digital technology, particularly platforms The ease in reaching communities also opens up
such as Facebook and Instagram, have been the space for peacebuilders to engage more voices
important for our [peacebuilding] work of and promote alternative narratives, allowing
not only increasing the visibility of youth‑led previously marginalised communities to speak
peacebuilding but also sharing positivity up about issues affecting them. Elsa Marie DSilva
around youth as agents of change.” (India) explained that:

With the usage of technology rapidly increasing “We have used social media very effectively
in the developing world, peacebuilders have more to get people to talk about taboo topics
opportunities to connect local efforts to global like sexual violence and abuse, share their
audiences and highlight the effectiveness of their experiences, create communities of support
work. Wonder Phiri (Zimbabwe) exemplified this: and gain confidence in breaking the silence.”

“Traditionally, we interacted with our By design, digital tools encourage a high‑level

target group using training workshops or of interaction, which facilitates the networking
seminars. Each activity would reach out of groups previously shut out of processes. This
to approximately 30 participants. Digital can encourage new avenues of participation
technology is enabling us to reach out to ten and engagement that increase local ownership
times more participants as they follow us on of peacebuilding activities. Valentina Baú
social media. In addition, other organisations (Australia) said:
disseminate our work to their direct
beneficiaries.” “These technologies allow communities
to have a voice, to contribute content
Peacebuilders often work in fragile and and ideas, and even to learn new skills.
conflict‑affected contexts where access to Effectively designed [peacebuilding]
communities is limited. In this regard, digital projects in this area have the potential
technologies have provided the means to engage to be transformative and truly enhance
communities in hard‑to reach areas and include participation.”
them in peacebuilding initiatives. Jacqueline Lacroix
(US) provided an example of this:

Digital Pathways for Peace / 21

 3.3. Potential for innovation coexistence and social harmony, using Virtual Reality
(VR) installations such as The Enemy to close the
Beyond breakthroughs in efficiency and accessibility, empathy gap between warring parties,39 or creating
digital technologies have the potential to be video games for peace such as Junub Games’s Salaam
harnessed for major peacebuilding innovations. which highlights a refugee’s experience of fleeing
Tech‑based solutions are often used to address gaps conflict,40 practitioners continue to find new ways
and complement existing peacebuilding processes and approaches to engage others in peacebuilding.
rather than creating new ones. But as the peacetech In these instances, digital technology is no longer
field progresses, new actors – such as entrepreneurs re‑purposed to support peacebuilding but rather
and tech developers – are entering the peacebuilding strategically designed to reshape how peacebuilders
space and designing technology with direct conduct their interventions. As Chinwe Ikpeama
peacebuilding benefits in mind. (UK/Nigeria) said:

Seemingly futuristic ideas are already being used to “Digital technology has led to an
advance peacebuilding. Whether it is HIVE Pakistan evolution of peacebuilding modes,
using holograms of revered figures to promote techniques and practices.”

Case Study: HIVE Pakistan

HIVE is a Pakistani civil society organisation working presented alongside commentary on the current
to counter extremism and work towards an inclusive, state of Pakistan, and calls on attendees to work for
peaceful society. In 2018 they started the AIK – Better unity and peace. While Jinnah’s ideals are taught
Together project. The AIK project (“one” in Urdu, at schools throughout Pakistan, many attendees
standing for unity) aims to build community resilience note that hearing them in this way has a much more
and counter extremist messages. Alongside more profound impact on their understanding of the
“traditional” activities – such as workshops, training, founding principles of Pakistan. In addition to the
and community engagement – the project makes holographic screening, these events also include
use of holographic technology to bring to life their other art installations to reinforce Jinnah’s message.
message of interfaith harmony, pluralism and social
cohesion in a new and engaging way. As of 2020, thousands of people have attended
screenings across the country. HIVE places
AIK – Better Together’s use of technology is particular emphasis on reaching grassroots
both creative and novel. HIVE uses the words communities in semi‑urban locations, and has held
and ideas of Pakistan’s founder, Quaid‑e‑Azam events in locations in Karachi, Swat. Lahore and
Muhammad Ali Jinnah. A revered and respected Kasur. HIVE recognises that alone these events are
figure in Pakistan, Jinnah called extensively for not enough to change attitudes and behaviour, but
interfaith harmony, pluralism and social cohesion. they can start a conversation and dialogue around
HIVE has taken his words and use 3D holographic matters of peace affecting Pakistan. Therefore,
representations of Jinnah to put together an HIVE has developed an extensive programme of
audio‑visual performance that it screens at large follow‑up activities in the locations the screenings
public events around Pakistan. take place to build on the impact of the screenings,
such as decorating rickshaws with images of Jinnah
At these gatherings Jinnah appears to speak and his quotes, as well as training workshops with
directly from his speeches and writings, which is community activists and social media outreach.

22 / Digital Pathways for Peace

 Greg Funnell
4. Strategies for effective
use of digital technologies
in peacebuilding

The use of digital technologies in peacebuilding has evolved drastically in recent

years and is now characterised by a wide and diverse variety of initiatives and
approaches. Rapid innovation has been accompanied by experimentation, and
peacebuilders around the world have continued to adopt digital technologies as
key resources by which they can actively participate and contribute to conflict
resolution and peacebuilding. While new and innovative tech‑based approaches
will inevitably come to the fore, currently available strategies highlighted from the
consultation can help civil society and donors alike to make informed decisions
about the appropriate uses of technology in their programming.

Digital Pathways for Peace / 23

 4.1. Promoting peace through “I believe there is potential for positive
digital communication messaging and narrative‑focused programs
through digital or traditional media to
positively impact problems of polarization
“Talking about violence is easy. Talking and adversarial identity formation.”
about peace is hard.”41
Awareness‑raising and positive messaging around
According to Search for Common Ground, peace is particularly important in fragile contexts
communication is “an interactive process, involving where a history of conflict or divisive events like
a multitude of actors and information flows.”42 As a elections have led to violence. Positive peace
growing importance is placed on interactivity in the messaging on social media played an important
digital space, peacebuilders have adapted to digital role in instilling a desire for peaceful change in
communication approaches in order to engage recent elections in Ghana and Liberia,44 and positive
people more directly (and frequently) in peace messaging around the contributions of youth have
narratives and create open spaces for marginalised increased youth participation in peacebuilding.45
voices and personal experiences to be amplified, Participants acknowledged this strategy, with
re‑shaping attitudes and behaviours in the process. Arnold Djuma Batundi (DRC) stating that online
peace messaging was used to sensitise people
against conflict in the DRC’s recent presidential
4.1.1. Online peace messaging elections, while Illa Sani (Niger) stated:

As grassroots communication swaps traditional “We implemented an awareness‑raising

media for online platforms, peacebuilders are and information campaign that primarily
increasingly relying on a variety of digital tools to targeted youth on social media, including
promote their messaging around peacebuilding to Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp, etc. and
a wider audience. These include online blogs, social managed to reach thousands of youth with
media campaigns, digital TV/radio programmes and our messaging around peacebuilding and
multimedia approaches such as virtual peace talks, non‑violence conflict management.”
webinars and photo competitions.
An important step in peace messaging is to recognise
The purpose of this approach is to sensitise people and encourage the contributions of marginalised
around the values and norms of peacebuilding, groups. This can help dismantle negative perceptions
attempting to shift away from conflict narratives while simultaneously providing opportunities for
and focus instead on commonalities like shared marginalised voices their insights and knowledge.
culture and collective well‑being. Consultation Lassi Vasanen (Finland) provided an example of how
participants noted the importance of peace this could be done:
messaging, claiming that it provides interactive
ways to get people more engaged with a cause and “How can one go about strengthening
promote a narrative that can change underlying narratives from marginalized communities?
attitudes and behaviours. This is vastly different In one of our peace projects, this consisted
to online ‘counter‑messaging’, a core tactic of of four components: (1) supporting these
preventing/countering violent extremism (P/ voices by mapping the “public mood” and
CVE) programmes used to disrupt online content creating messages; (2) engaging in dynamic
disseminated by extremist groups and individuals, outreach to stakeholders and partners; (3)
which can further exacerbate isolation and building coalitions and networks; and (4)
polarisation.43 Jacqueline Lacroix (US) posited: utilizing knowledge management tools in
order to do all of this more efficiently and
effectively.”

24 / Digital Pathways for Peace

Case study: Wagiga Hadid and countering rumours
and misinformation in South Sudan

South Sudan has suffered from a disastrous civil of verification, dissemination and intervention.
war marked by atrocities, ethnic and gender‑based On receiving a report, the project team’s first
violence, the recruitment of child soldiers and task is to verify the information. Local sources of
other war crimes that have killed hundreds of knowledge – such as community leaders, local
thousands of civilians and displaced millions in non-governmental organisations (NGOs), or local
neighbouring countries across East Africa. Despite authorities – are contacted to determine whether
the establishment of a transitional coalition the piece of information is true or false. Upon
government and a negotiated peace roadmap, deep receiving independent verification or refutation of
mistrust and ongoing intercommunal tensions the report, the platform will disseminate findings
remain a major impediment to lasting peace. In this back to relevant stakeholders. Finally, in situations
fragile context, polarising rumours, hate speech where a rumour proves correct and has a high chance
and misinformation are rampant. For instance, of leading to violence, the project team will work
according to the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) with relevant actors to defuse the situation.
six out ten rumours related to COVID‑19 that are
circulating in South Sudan are false.46 In recent months, the project has been able to
turn this infrastructure and approach toward the
To tackle this issue, the Sentinel Project established COVID‑19 pandemic. Using the same systems
the Hagiga Wahid project (Juba Arabic for “One and methodology, Hagiga Wahid has been able
Truth”), essentially an online platform that works to to tackle misinformation and falsehoods around
dispel malicious rumours and misinformation which the coronavirus.
can contribute to intercommunal tensions and
lead to violence. Focused on the South Sudanese Hagiga Wahid provides an accurate, independent,
context as well as refugee settlements in northern and trusted source of information for refugee
Uganda, Hagiga Wahid fills the information gap by and host communities, resulting in a reduction in
engaging South Sudanese in collecting, verifying, community tension, as well as encouraging a critical
and responding to rumours and misinformation. approach to rumours among the target groups.
Furthermore, the digital technologies the project
Members of the public are invited to submit rumours employs allow the system to work with communities
that they have heard to the project via zero‑cost across both sides of the border and between
SMS messages or a free mobile app. Hagiga Wahid communities, enabling rumours to be dispelled
then submits these reports to a structured process before they have a chance to spread more widely.

Digital Pathways for Peace / 25

 4.1.2. Digital storytelling “The strategy I use is my real‑life story, using
social – especially Facebook – to tell the
Digital technologies have opened up opportunities story, draw the attention of stakeholders to
for local peacebuilders to share their own stories the post and make it a trending issue. My
and communicate lived experiences of conflict. As tactic is always to be precise, factual and
an instrument for socialisation, storytelling focuses truthful with my claims. That way, I do not
on empowering personal narratives and highlighting spread fake news or lay claims of falsehood.”
a state of transformation or change in a way that
is relatable and impacts the reader.47 Significantly, Digital stories are not exclusively written narratives;
storytelling can assign value and meaning in ways they often include video‑narratives, recorded voice/
that data and figures cannot. audio messages, or still and moving images to help tell
the story. Multimedia content can help make stories
For local peacebuilders, it is important to use more creative and potent by expressing intangible
storytelling strategies in order to validate the aspects in a visual or oral format. Valentina Baú
transparency and authenticity of their work. Dennis (Australia) provided an example of a participatory
Ekwere (Nigeria) explained how he communicates photography project she worked on in Kenya:
to his audience:

Digital photography, and the immediate access it provides to

images, has been crucial in establishing a dialogue between
young people from different tribes. The stories told around
the images taken were incredibly powerful and allowed
participants to learn more about each other’s experience
and community narrative.

Other multimedia examples include: Border Lives, Digital stories also provide another avenue for
an oral history project that created a video series marginalised communities to amplify their voices
which explores the lives and experiences of people and tackle prejudice and discrimination. Digital
living in the border between Northern Ireland storytelling is rooted in the notion of ‘democratised
and the Republic of Ireland; Zoomin.TV’s Local culture’; storytelling allows for a diversity of voices
Heroes video series which profiles individuals to be heard, marrying diversity awareness with
at the grassroots level who try to change their communication and advocacy to tackle prejudice
communities for the better, and Idlib Lives, and stereotyping, and build connections.48 Indeed,
an interactive website produced by The Syria consultation participants saw transforming
Campaign that spotlights leading activists working attitudes and behaviours as an express aim of
towards peace in Syria’s northern Idlib province. their digital peacebuilding work. Aishatu Gwadabe
(Germany/Benin) explained that:

“Through the tool of digital peace

storytelling, we aim to enable voices to
express a diversity of experiences. […]
It connects with the practice of active
listening to overcome prejudice, leading
towards a transformative learning
process by motivating people to undergo
self‑transformation.”

26 / Digital Pathways for Peace

Furthermore, storytelling can be utilised as a form of Significantly, telling stories about peace fits
truth‑telling in order to heal traumatic experiences within a larger practice of active listening and
and promote social coexistence. Anna Dupont (Mali) promoting a culture of peace. This is essential
explains that the Commission on Truth, Justice and to enact nonviolent social change, especially in
Reconciliation in Mali has been looking at ways to divided societies. Christian Cito Cirhigiri (Belgium)
increase awareness around their work: explained that:

“They recently carried out their first public “We have also learned that it is critical to
hearing with victims of violence from all think of online storytelling as a building block
sides who narrated stories. The first meeting on the continuum ending with transforming
was quite powerful. It was eventually shown peace narratives in digital spaces. The
widely on TV and in video format on social question then is not only how we apply
media channels. Five more public hearings storytelling in peacebuilding but also what
are planned in the next few months.” kinds of peacebuilding narratives are we
trying to transform.”

Case study: Peacemaker 360 – youths as active agents of change

Young people are at the forefront of many and creating illustrations and photo portraits of
movements and community‑based efforts around individual youth peacebuilders on Instagram. Over
the world that are advancing peace and promoting four years, Peacemaker 360 has shared the stories
more inclusive and equitable societies. Yet, despite of over 4000 youth peacebuilders in 45 countries
the historic adoption of the UN’s youth, peace and and has become a key interactive space for sharing
security agenda, youth peacebuilders remain largely knowledge on youth‑led peacebuilding and
excluded from decision‑making processes and their promoting youth as positive agents of change.
positive contributions are seldom acknowledged in
digital media. Despite this success, Christian noted that their
storytelling efforts are only one part of a continuum
Recognising this gap, Christian Cito Cirhigiri, a young that can lead to transforming peace narratives
peacebuilder originally from the DRC, founded in digital platforms. The critical component is
Peacemaker 360 in 2016 to give more visibility determining what narratives they have the power
to youth‑led peacebuilding and connect local to change and how to assess the behavioural
peacebuilders from around the world. Peacemaker change that comes from their storytelling. To that
360 uses online social media platforms to profile end, Peacemaker 360 is developing its own impact
youth peace activists and share their stories, with monitoring tools so they can improve the quality
the ultimate goal of celebrating, connecting and of their storytelling and align it with the desired
amplifying global peace activism. narrative change they seek. Christian asserted:

The platform uses digital storytelling techniques “We believe that by showcasing youth
to highlight transformative narratives of peacebuilders’ stories in social media
change and resilience and develop peer youth platforms such as Facebook, Instagram
networks. These include publishing online blogs and Twitter, we contribute in a small way
and interviews profiling youth activists, hosting to building a bridge of productive dialogue
targeted livestream discussions on Facebook, between youth and others.”

Digital Pathways for Peace / 27

 4.2. Digital mobilisation In an era where the physical space for civil society
and networking is shrinking, online mobilisation has proven
effective in circumventing government crackdowns
by mobilising in a dispersed and network‑like
As briefly discussed in section 3.1, digital manner, using encrypted communications and
technologies have opened new avenues for coded language with their members. To that end,
networking and mobilisation, breaking down organisations like the Paradigm Initiative, Tactical
communication barriers between physically Technology Centre and Mobilisation Lab have
separated communities and increasing supported activists on how to counter authoritarian
opportunities for collective action. This shift governments in the online space.52
has enabled local peacebuilders to establish
alternative spaces for engagement and exchange These communities can leverage digital
that build awareness around peacebuilding and technologies to be more agile and organise
can tap into a large constituency of supporters to themselves across borders more efficiently,
enact positive change. with the ability to ‘activate’ remote supporters
without a large resource investment. For instance,
the +Peace Coalition has coordinated multiple
4.2.1. Developing online global online campaigns, mobilising communities
peace constituencies49 and organisations to raise awareness about
peacebuilding in their contexts. Moreover,
Digital technologies have reduced the barrier to fast and easy communication can accelerate
entry for people to participate in social and political group decision‑making and online communities’
movements, and are playing a constructive role responsiveness to a crisis. Claire Devlin (UK) said:
in mobilising grassroots participation at a global
level. With public discourse shifting online, users “Social media in particular has the
are increasingly connecting to new, powerful capacity to link peace movements in a
global communities of like‑minded people who can much less hierarchical fashion than would
be propelled into action on behalf of a domestic otherwise be possible and allow consensual
or global cause.50 The development of online decision‑making.”
communities can cut across diverse sociocultural
and political landscapes, binding users through Through online mobilisation, peacebuilders can
normative values and a heightened sense of connect their local peace agendas to wider online
solidarity.51 Adewale Bakare (Nigeria) said: networks. These networks can create online
hubs for regular discussions, coordinate social
“[Digital technology] is strengthening and media campaigns, engage in online lobbying and
building networks of different people across boycotts, and organise e‑petitions, which have been
the globe with a common identity or values popularised by platforms such as Avaaz, 38 Degrees
around social and economic development and Change.org. While critics have dismissed some
and making peacebuilding effective.” of these actions as ‘slacktivism’,53 these mobilisation
tools go a long way in helping to raise awareness of
Peacebuilders have capitalised on the development an issue, which over time contributes to stronger
of these communities to create new constituencies collective identities. Dennis Ekwere (Nigeria)
for peace, using them as vehicles for peace acknowledged their inherent value in pressuring
promotion. Mohamed Farahat (Egypt) explained that: targeted stakeholders:

“In the digital age, technology plays a “I have used social media to drive social
significant role in advancing peacebuilding, change in my country. Through online
especially in mobilizing people and raising petitions, we have attracted the concerned
their awareness on the importance of stakeholders to engage in dialogue and
peacebuilding, mobilizing people to conciliation.”
participate in the process.”

28 / Digital Pathways for Peace

 4.2.2. Platforms for dialogue
Michael Tippett

and exchange
Digital technology has made possible near‑instant,
affordable communication between people based
anywhere in the world, and in doing so has opened
up possibilities for important exchanges, developing
partnerships and peer networks that foster
knowledge and improve peacebuilding practice.

Some of the most immediately apparent use of

digital technologies in this regard are initiatives
using tools such as online video calls, social
networks, or even videogames, to promote cultural
exchanges between individuals from groups that
would otherwise find themselves separated by
Moreover, civil society online networks borders or divided by conflict. One such example
can play an important role in strategically is Sharing Perspectives Foundation’s Virtual
countering misinformation and hate speech. Exchange. Ami Carpenter (US) explained that:
For instance, #defyhatenow, a South Sudanese
community‑based organisation operating across “Virtual exchanges – defined as sustained,
Africa, has worked to raise awareness around technology‑enabled, people‑to‑people
the dangers of misinformation and training education programs – can vastly expand
fact‑checkers. Likewise, civil society groups the number and diversity of young people
in Brazil have banded together to combat who have access to profound cross‑cultural
misinformation around the COVID‑19 pandemic.54 experiences as part of their education.”

Consultation participants further recognised that Similarly, James Offuh (Cote d’Ivoire) stated that:
youth are a key mobilising force for collective
action. Research has also highlighted that youth “Digital intercultural dialogue is a
are among the most engaged in political and platform for learning, deep listening and
civic life online,55 and millions of youth are using effective communication. I call it a ‘digital
digital platforms to voice their opinions and living system’, where everyone is deeply
undertake in progressive forms of collective heard without critics, accusations or
action.56 Consultation participants recognised this condemnation. Every opinion is part of the
momentum and saw activities seeking to facilitate whole – a community collective of wisdom.
this process as essential to advancing the Youth, It dignifies and humanises every participant
Peace and Security (YPS) agenda. Constantine Loum from all cultural diversities.”
(Uganda) asserted that:
In addition to offering peacebuilders tools they
“We need to engage youth as key can make use of in their work, digital technologies
constituents in making peace; it is provide access to an ever‑expanding array of
akin to the gender mainstreaming, opportunities for learning, networking, and
where a deliberate effort is made to collaboration. Numerous initiatives have emerged
keep youth engaged through specially in recent years that provide practitioners space
designed peace program targeting them to connect, learn from each other and share their
as consumers or implementers. […] So experiences. Indeed, the analysis in this report is
current peacebuilders need to target them based on discussions hosted in one such platform,
in peacebuilding and motivate them in Peace Direct’s Platform4Dialogue.
harnessing DTs [digital technologies] as a
force of good for the world.”

Digital Pathways for Peace / 29

 Case study: Peace Direct’s Platform4Dialogue
Launched in 2019 by Peace Direct,
Platform4Dialogue brings together and connects
people around the globe to engage in discussions
on issues of common interest. Over the past 12
months Platform4Dialogue has hosted discussions
between peacebuilders on topics such as youth‑led
peacebuilding, the impact of COVID‑19 on local
peacebuilding, and recommendations for the Global
Fragility Strategy.

One of the primary goals for Platform4Dialogue

was to create an inclusive space for discussion
and collaboration. Recognising that many of the
participants will face challenges and obstacles when
accessing a website such as Platform4Dialogue,
the project made a conscious effort to remove as
many of these obstacles as possible. For example, and out of the discussions it takes concerted effort
allowing for real‑time translation of discussions into to ensure the discussion builds on contributions
these English, French, Spanish and Arabic; following already made instead of repeating the same points
accessibility best practices to accommodate those over again.
with visual impairments; and ensuring usability in
low bandwidth environments. Online discussions such as Platform4Dialogue
have benefits too: it is far easier to follow parallel
An online discussion platform such as conversations and identify opportunities to bring
Platform4Dialogue also enables thinking about conversations together; there are more ways to
inclusion in ways not possible in face‑to‑face take participants outside of the main discussion;
meetings. The nature of the way Platform4Dialogue and it is possible to remove disruptive or malicious
works means that discussions are held contributions.
asynchronously – in other words participants
don’t need to be online at the same time. They can One of the motivations for Platform4Dialogue came
participate at times that suit them. This reduces from Peace Direct’s need to create a discussion
many of the barriers that participants may face space for participants in conflict‑affected contexts.
compared with real‑time discussions. Participants In many contexts in‑person gatherings of civil
can be based anywhere in the world and are not society may not be possible due to safety concerns
required to set aside large blocks of time. This or be affected by travel limitations. In situations like
allows discussions to include a real breadth of these an online platform can enable discussions that
viewpoints and allows for conversations that may not otherwise be possible.
represent greater diversity. Participants can also
set their own pace, they have the time and space to By developing Platform4Dialogue instead of relying
read, absorb and reflect on the discussions before on existing solutions, Peace Direct has sought to
contributing their own thoughts, perhaps enabling a address many of the ethical and safety concerns
richer and deeper dialogue. that come with the use of technology. It ensures
that potentially sensitive data will not be sold or
Moderation and facilitation of online discussions passed on to third parties, for example, and includes
presents some unique challenges – the anonymity features to improve the safety and security of
provided by the platform may enable participants to participants, for example allowing anonymous
engage in a negative way; or as participants drop in participation.

30 / Digital Pathways for Peace

4.3. Gathering data for “The problem of administrative delays and
conflict prevention anachronisms in the [offline] system were
major impediments to the smooth running of
our early warning system, which became a
4.3.1. Crisis mapping and problem for achieving our project objectives.
crowdsourcing In order to gain speed and [improve]
ergonomics, we decided to digitise all
By and large, most attention in this space has been operations of our early warning system.”
paid to crisis mapping initiatives, with projects such
as the Ushahidi platform regularly used a reference Many participants recognised the value of digital
point to demonstrate the value and innovation of technologies in supporting early warning initiatives,
‘peacetech’.57 Crisis mapping initiatives rely on tools including how they streamline the documentation
– such as satellite imaging, geographic information and mapping of incidents of violence and human
systems (GIS), geographic positioning systems (GPS) rights violations in near real‑time, allowing for rapid
and mobile technology – to collect, track, analyse and information sharing and more timely responses.
visually present data and statistics through the use of Hassan Mutubwa (Kenya) claimed how GIS and
interactive maps. With much of the data geo‑tagged mobile SMS systems ensure credibility via effective
or ‑located, practitioners can filter through streams of cross‑referencing of information and sources, while
information, pinpoint ‘hotspots’ of violence, determine Elly Maloba (Kenya) noted that:
where to focus their peacebuilding interventions and
advocate for targeted support to mitigate against “Digital technologies have had a significant
violence. Examples of crisis maps include global impact on how we collect, analyse and
platforms such as the Armed Conflict Location & disseminate conflict early warning and early
Event Data (ACLED) project, as well as more localised response reports. A mixture of digital tools
crisis maps such as the Kivu Security Tracker and LRA helps in mapping and synthesising reports
Crisis Tracker, where the movements of armed groups in order to present compelling cases about
and incidents of violence are tracked and recorded. conflict which are met with appropriate
Moreover, online crisis maps are adaptable and allow responses from all levels.”
new information to be overlaid and filtered along
with existing data. For instance, International Alert’s Traditionally, collecting data on violence has relied
Philippines team adapted existing conflict maps to on trained field monitors or trusted informants
include data on COVID‑19 hotspots, highlighting who manoeuvre on the ground, but logistical
areas where infections, vulnerabilities and tensions and security challenges often prevent them from
converge.58 verifying and triangulating information. However,
with the advent of online and mobile platforms,
This approach has had very clear applications in peacebuilders are now able to collect vast amounts
improving early warning and early response (EWER) of data from multiple, decentralised sources
systems. An inherent operational challenge of early through online crowdsourcing techniques. For
warning systems is to ensure that warnings are sent example, Amnesty International has set up its
to the appropriate stakeholders at the right time, ‘Strike Tracker’ project in Syria, which crowdsources
and any delay or inability to send the relevant data information from digital activists on how the US’s
greatly diminishes the value of that information.59 airstrikes have destroyed the city of Raqqa in its
Aishatu Gwadabe (Germany/Benin) described how battle against the Islamic State. Another recent
this problem affected an early warning system she example is the Coronavirus Tech Handbook, which
had worked on: has crowdsourced ideas and tools from thousands
of expert contributors to support a coordinated
COVID‑19 response across a variety of disciplines.

Digital Pathways for Peace / 31

 This emerging practice has not only allowed for Indeed, crowdsourcing data can provide the ‘big
more data entry points to inform analysis and picture’ data and trends that decision‑makers seek
provide a feedback loop, but it has also opened the in order to make informed decisions about how
space for traditionally marginalised voices to be to respond. However, it is important to note that
heard. Ada Ichoja Ohaba (Nigeria) attested that: crowdsourcing can run into certain sustainability,
ethical and security challenges, which will be
“Crowdsourcing can give a voice to discussed in sections 5.2.1. and 5.2.3; therefore, it is
marginalised groups because it helps important to consider when to use it and look into
community members give adequate ways where it can complement more traditional
information of cases which were not crisis mapping work.
properly handled by the authorities.”

Case study: Safecity and sexual violence in India

Safecity is a crowdsourced mapping project which regular reports and
documents stories of sexual violence in public spaces. dashboards that present
The project invites women to anonymously submit the data in an accessible,
reports of sexual violence to an online platform that and actionable, way.
collects and displays them in an interactive online
map. Launched in India in 2013 as an immediate Safecity has partnered
response to a horrific gang rape on a Dehli bus, the directly with local NGOs,
project has to date collected over 12,000 stories police departments, and
from cities across India, and the rest of the world. other local authorities to
facilitate co‑ordinated
The goal of the project is two‑fold. On a very responses to the
immediate, practical level the data allows women problems the reports highlighted. Police patrols
– and everyone in general – to identify locations in Mumbai have changed their patrols to more
where they may be at higher risk of sexual violence. effectively police known hotspots. Over 13,000
At the same time, by documenting incidents of people have attended workshops to raise awareness
sexual violence it is possible to identify trends and of sexual violence and legal rights. Roundtables have
hotspots, which can be used by NGOs and local been contacted to discuss and identify solutions.
authorities to respond accordingly. Safecity is also able to provide services directly to
victims of sexual violence and harassment.
Data is collected in two ways. It’s possible to post
reports directly to the website, in anonymous Collecting, presenting, and publicising data in such
and secure way. However, recognising that many a way has proved to be an effect mechanism to hold
do not have the access to technology that would institutions to account; it’s hard to ignore the data
allow them to do this, Safecity also collects reports and direct experiences of women. Safecity note that
manually through in‑person workshops, focus group this often has an empowering effect for the women
discussions and reports from local authorities. submitting reports and attending the workshops.
It offers them a space to share their experiences,
This data is then aggregated onto an interactive discover that they are not alone, and help them
online map which enables anybody with access to understand the context in which sexual violence
view and analyse the data. Safecity also produce takes place.

32 / Digital Pathways for Peace

4.3.2. ‘Big Data’ and

Harry Wood
blockchain technology
As datasets continue to grow in variability and
complexity, attention has shifted to the potential
benefits of ‘big data’60 and AI programmes to
process large stores of data in order to generate
insights and actionable information. Most of this
data derives from the private sector, and includes
‘data exhaust’ – data trails left by users’ online
activity, behaviours and transactions – as well as
online information and crowdsourced data.

The breadth, complexity and speed of big data

has made it increasingly valuable in supporting
peacebuilding outcomes. It has huge benefits not
only for early warning work, providing rapid and
accurate information that further reduces the time lag
between warnings and timely responses, but it also
helps to generate real‑time awareness of a situation
and beneficiary behaviours that informs programmes
and policies.61 Examples of big data initiatives include
analysing radio broadcast data to deep data mining
of social media platforms involving a combination of
human and machine‑learning processes to understand
people’s perceptions of a given issue or topic. A recent
and important application of big data has also been There has also been an increasing interest in the
to monitor and predict outbreaks of the COVID‑19 potential of advancing peace and democracy
epidemic using mobile phone data and remote imaging through blockchain technology, a sophisticated
to engage in contract tracing.62 and distributed online ledger that ensures
trustworthy exchanges and transactions which
Indeed, this sub‑field of peacetech has gained cannot be tampered with. Originally associated
traction with policymakers because of the potential with Bitcoin currency,64 blockchain technology
it holds, including the UN who has established a ‘big applications have been developed to enable
data’ lab called UN Global Pulse. Mohamed Farahat social change. For example, Democracy Earth
(Egypt) concluded that: Foundation piloted a blockchain‑powered digital
voting platform called Plebiscito Digital (Digital
“Big data has significant implications Plebiscite) which allowed Colombian expatriates
for decision‑making, by assisting to vote on the peace treaty negotiated by the
decision‑makers to identify the problem Colombian government and the FARC rebel
and find proprietary solutions in the context group.65 Blockchain technology, however, remains
of peacebuilding. Big data will play a very at an early stage of development, and therefore
important role in the monitoring and analysis many design choices and suitable frameworks for
of people’s behaviours in conflict areas.” its use in peacebuilding need to be considered.
Nonetheless, as Travis Heneveld (US) said:
Despite the manifold possibilities that big data
presents, it is important to note that at this stage “Digital tools based on distributed ledger
it cannot be a replacement for traditional research and AI technology, combined with the right
and data, as conventional research methods are inclusion, ethical and other considerations,
still needed to validate big data and help identify will help ensure a safer and more trusting
potential biases within their datasets.63 sharing of information.”

Digital Pathways for Peace / 33

 4.4. The utility of ‘offline’ technology At the same time participants noted that, despite
the potential digital technologies may hold, we
There is a tendency to equate digital technology should not be too quick to rush ahead without
with the internet and connectivity. Much of the careful consideration of the implications. For
focus of digital technology is directed toward the starters legacy technologies still have their place.
impacts of the internet, particularly the role of While the ever‑improving affordability and
social media, the ease and immediacy of digital accessibility of digital technologies may put them
communication and the positive and negative in the hands of an increasing number of people, in
impacts of our increasingly connected world. many contexts legacy technologies, such as radio,
However, the ‘digitisation’ of peace and conflict are still the most accessible and available. There is
encompasses technologies that do not have an a danger that ignoring these will exclude the most
online aspect. Valentina Baú (Australia) noted: vulnerable groups. Chris Simmonds (UK) noted that:

“We need to keep our definition of digital “If radio is the main means of communication
technology broad. Video, photography, radio among a target audience or key actors, then
and animation – depending on their format that medium should be the main focus, with
– are definitely technologies belonging to appropriate security measures oriented to
the digital space, which are being adopted in that (back up stations, multiple broadcast
peacebuilding interventions. Digital does not locations, pseudonyms, only non‑specific info
have to mean “online.” shared on air). Digital elements should be less
of a focus here exactly because major work
There are many digital technologies that in the digital realm would be unsustainable,
offer peacebuilders opportunities to deliver exclusionary and extremely risky.”
peacebuilding interventions in new and creative
ways. For example, there is ongoing research In many cases it may be most effective to apply
into the use Virtual Reality to build empathy a “hybrid” approach to the use of technology,
towards ‘out‑groups’; satellite imagery has been combining legacy technologies with digital ones.
used to monitor population displacement and call In this way peacebuilders are able to maximise the
attention to ongoing atrocities; and video games positive potentials of particular technologies, while
have been developed to promote peaceful conflict minimising the shortcomings. Lisa Schirch (US)
resolution instead of violence. stated that:

Peacebuilders can use a

Greg Funnell

combination of legacy media

like TV, radio, magazines, and
newspapers in combination
with social media technologies.
Social media is great for
distribution of material. If
you have a story about your
peacebuilding in a local
newspaper in your country,
share this story on social
media.

34 / Digital Pathways for Peace

How digital peacebuilding can reduce the
negative impacts of COVID‑19

The COVID‑19 pandemic has had major and peace,69 and Turning the Tide (TTT) in East Africa
devastating impacts around the world. From teaming up with a local news station to promote
bringing the global economy to a grinding halt to peace messaging through radio broadcasts and
fuelling misinformation and fomenting distrust of raise awareness of the virus.70
government authorities, the virus has upended • Establishing platforms to tackle misinformation
any sense of ‘normality’. Alarmingly, it has also online. For instance, the Myanmar ICT for
aggravated drivers of conflict, especially in fragile Development Organisation (MIDO) created a
and conflict‑affected states, and poses a major platform called “Real or Not” that is designed
systemic threat to peacebuilding capacity around to fact check misinformation regarding the
the world.66 pandemic.71 Likewise, youth in South Sudan have
played a crucial role in tackling misinformation
Facing travel restrictions, funding freezes and and polarisation related to COVID‑19, with
dwindling donations, many civil society organisations youth advocacy groups banding together to
have entered a period of high insecurity as they try dispel fake news about the virus on Facebook.72
to cope with scarce financial resources and deal with • Reducing digital divides by raising the voices of
ongoing logistical and operational challenges in their marginalised groups. The impacts of COVID‑19
peacebuilding work. Moreover, organisations have are deeply gendered and
been forced to reduce staff capacity are disproportionately affecting women and
and most international personnel have returned to other marginalised groups – incidents of
their home countries. The retreat of peacebuilding gender‑based violence and domestic violence
interventions comes with great risk – potentially have increased.73 To that end, the Global
undermining peace processes and emboldening Network of Women Peacebuilders (GNWP) has
conflict actors to fill in the vacuum. In fact, many set up an online podcast highlighting frontline
active conflicts – such as in Syria, Yemen or Libya – initiatives to reduce the negative impacts of
have not altered course as a result of the pandemic.67 COVID‑19 on women.74
• Crowdsourcing ideas and information to
Despite these challenging circumstances, support a more effective response to the virus.
peacebuilders have proven remarkably adaptable For instance, Ecuadorian NGOs organised an
and are finding innovative ways to continue their online ‘Post‑Crisis Hackathon’ to crowdsource
work, including: project ideas to tackle the virus and broadcast
the results in a live YouTube broadcast to help
• Switching to video conferencing, encrypted gain visibility to innovative ideas.75 Likewise,
communications (e.g. WhatsApp groups), and PeaceTech Labs have set up a COVID‑19
online project management platforms (e.g. Violence and Response Tracker to crowdsource
Trello, Asana) to coordinate their activities ideas and information on both problems and
and strategize remotely, accelerating a shift peacetech solutions to tackle COVID‑19 related
that has gradually been taking place across the violence.
peacebuilding space for many years. • Supporting flexible and inclusive funding
• Prioritising online platforms and digital radio structures to support local peacebuilding
programming to promote peace messaging organisations affected by the pandemic. For
and raise awareness of the risks related to instance, Peace Direct, Conducive Space for
COVID‑19. Initiatives include video messages Peace and Humanity United recently established
of peace and goodwill by the Welsh League of a Digital Inclusion Initiative to provide the
Youth (Urdd Gobaith Cymru),68 repurposing opportunity for peacebuilders to take part in a
Mali’s UN peace radio, Mikado FM, to relay global network, access learning tools for digital
public service messages about the pandemic and peacebuilding and apply for grants.

Digital Pathways for Peace / 35

 Greg Funnell
5. Barriers and challenges in
using digital technologies

While digital technologies are now more widely adopted by local peacebuilders,
they still face a wide range of challenges linked with operating in difficult and
conflict‑affected contexts, which are fraught with inherent structural and
governance issues that can undermine their work. Moreover, peacebuilders must
equally account for a more holistic approach when using technology in their
programming, which must consider ethical guidelines, conflict sensitivity and
security planning across all stages of their interventions.

36 / Digital Pathways for Peace

5.1. Structural and policy barriers Without regular access, the positive dividends
that digital technologies can provide are lost on
For many participants operating in fragile and the communities who would benefit the most from
conflict‑affected contexts, intersectional issues them. Anna Dupont (Mali) noted:
including poverty, limited infrastructure, digital
literacy, marginalisation, and restrictive regulatory “I am finding it difficult to see exactly
environments have perpetuated – and in some how digital technologies can support
case exacerbated – restrictions in access to digital peacebuilding as many areas that are highly
technologies. These ‘digital divides’76 are leading unstable and conflict prone do not [yet]
to new exclusions that widen inequalities and risk have widespread access to digital tools
replicating and amplifying some of the fault lines and the internet due to poverty. How can
that can lead to violence.77 we utilise these technologies for “positive”
outcomes if the beneficiaries do not yet
have access, knowledge or the experience
5.1.1. Poverty and limited infrastructure of using digital tools and resources?”

There is a strong correlation between digital divides Undoubtedly internet penetration rates and
and poverty. According to the UN Conference the ownership of mobile phones are on the rise
on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), digital in emerging economies.80 However, the access
access across the world is characterised by a gap is still notable and consultation participants
wide gap between developed countries, where who primarily rely on telephone networks to
digital innovations are supporting rapid economic communicate in the field stated that topping up
development, and the least‑developed countries, their phone credit is a constant challenge impeding
where only one in five people use the internet.78 their work.
Moreover, one third of the world’s population does
not own a mobile phone, and 50% of the global
population does not even have access to the internet.79 5.1.2. Digital literacy and
marginalisation
This is partly tied to poor infrastructure
development across some lower‑developed While weak infrastructure and costs remain key
countries, as well as the targeted destruction of barriers, gaps in digital literacy have prevented
infrastructure in conflict‑affected contexts, but it is many from taking advantage of new technologies.
also directly impacted by urban‑rural divides that Indeed, the UN Educational, Scientific and
are leaving many behind. The resulting scarcity in Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) considers digital
availability can make accessing digital technologies literacy a critical ‘enabler’ of socio‑economic
quite costly and prohibitive. Reflecting on this, transformation.81 And yet, digital literacy levels
Arnold Djuma Batundi (DRC) stated that: are often overestimated;82 awareness of digital
technology is fairly low in some contexts, and its
“Technologies are not given for free. There utility is not always well understood.
is a cost, so the poor cannot easily access
them, even if they are in urban areas and For participants, this presents a major challenge for
it’s possible to access them. A people digital inclusion, as entire communities are at risk of
bruised by repeated wars will not have easy being excluded from the digital space. Qamar Jafri
access to digital technologies.” (Australia) explained that:

Basic literacy around the use of technology (e.g. computers

and on line media) is one of the most fundamental aspects
of digital inclusivity. Those individuals who are illiterate with
technology are excluded from the online space.

Digital Pathways for Peace / 37

 Tied to this, linguistic barriers add to digital further alienates local communities from
literacy issues as many digital tools are using them. Landry Ninteretse (Burundi)
limited to major language groups, which stated that:

The place of local languages in new technologies is

important – the latter are often associated with foreign
languages and thus accessible only to the elites in cities.
In order to increase adoption of new technologies, it is
important to ensure the usage of local languages for wider
accessibility.

Some local populations have managed to partially “Minority groups and women are often the
bypass their literacy issues by manipulating and most likely to be targeted by harassment
adapting the technology itself. For example, Anna and hate speech, in some cases forcing
Dupont (Mali) points out that despite high illiteracy them out of spaces in which they are
in Mali, “people use WhatsApp voice options and already underrepresented.”
specifically locally‑developed apps that allow for
voice messages to be sent.” This example speaks to This is part and parcel of a larger structural problem
the importance of context‑relevant uses of digital around the design of the technologies themselves.
technologies; discussed further in section 5.2.1. Melanie Pinet (UK) stated that:

While digital technologies are increasingly adapting “The risks linked to artificial intelligence
to accessibility needs, gradually reducing the entry (and other digital technologies) also reside
barrier for groups like older adults and people with in their development: those designing
disabilities, minority groups and women continue them are far from representing others’
to be disproportionately affected due to ongoing worldviews and experiences, let alone
socio‑cultural factors that disadvantage them. those of under‑represented minorities and
Statistically, women are significantly more limited traditionally disadvantaged groups.”
in their uptake of digital technologies, particularly
in Africa and Asia, where a prevailing perception is Peacebuilders are therefore limited by digital
that “mobile internet is not relevant to their lives.”83 literacy gaps, which are compounded by underlying
Arnold Djuma Batundi (DRC) asserted that: gendered norms and replicated power imbalances
that act as barriers to women and minority groups’
“Traditional and customary habits in certain access to digital technologies. Lassi Vasanen
regions of my country (especially in rural (Finland) explained:
areas) marginalise women at birth. Men
prohibit their wives from using phones, for “The digitalisation of media seems to go
example, or connecting to social networks. in line with existing power disparities;
Those who accept it strongly survey them the marginalised communities also have
which always leads to conflicts in the less weight in the social media sphere.
home.” Therefore, it is important to strengthen
these narratives while remaining conflict
Even for women and minority groups who can sensitive.”
access digital networks, their participation is
sometimes met with animosity and hate. Jacqueline
Lacroix (US) explained that:

38 / Digital Pathways for Peace

5.1.3. Restrictive regulatory
environments
As discussed in section 2.2.1., in many
conflict‑affected contexts peacebuilders face
challenging regulatory environments that suffer
from repressive governance which can place
severe restrictions on the internet, telecoms
and media connectivity, including on encryption
technologies (see section 6.2. for further details).
This can range from censoring and filtering the
internet to prohibit the spread of unfavourable
information, a notable example being China’s
‘Great Firewall’,84 to imposing punishing taxes
on the use of online networks and transactions
using mobile phones, such as in Uganda where the
government is attempting to stop “idle chatter.”85
Constantine Loum (Uganda) rationalised that:

“Government restrictions, including the

taxing of social media and sites being
blocked in some countries, create problems A major complicating factor is the complicity –
for peacebuilders in promoting their peace coerced or intentional – of the very companies and
messaging around the world.” providers offering digital technologies and services.
Large tech firms including Apple, Google and
This is especially an issue in times of crisis or Facebook have approved government censorship
conflict, where rapid and debilitating measures are and restrictive measures in order to enter new
put in place under the pretext of perceived threats markets such as in Myanmar, highlighting how
to national security. Valentina Baú (Australia) profit motivations can sometimes supersede moral
elaborated on this: convictions.87 An anonymous participant from
Zimbabwe noted that:
“Another important barrier to connectivity
is internet shutdowns. In recent times, there “If telephone and internet providers
have been a number of internet disruptions are complicit or want to avoid negative
instigated by public authorities.” government responses, internet freedom is
very quickly and seemingly limited at the
Indeed, repressive governments worldwide are state level.”
increasingly resorting to this tactic to silence
critics.86 In Sudan, a 68‑day shutdown in early 2019 Expanding on the implications for local
coincided with widespread protests against the peacebuilding, Elly Maloba (Kenya) explained that:
leadership of long‑time President, Omar al‑Bashir.
Likewise, the Indian government organised more “From a practitioner’s point of view, the
than 40 internet blackouts in the Jammu and challenge is posed by the lack of control
Kashmir region in 2019, many of which took place of people in the developing world over the
after the government rescinded the territory’s source technology. As such, much of what
autonomy. And in the DRC, a 20‑day internet passes as end‑user technologies is subject
shutdown followed the 2018 presidential elections to foreign corporate or government policies
after the results were contested amid widespread and legislation that leaves little guarantees
allegations of fraud. over security issues.”

Digital Pathways for Peace / 39

 5.2. Process and internal • Creating unrealistic expectations by introducing
challenges technology; and
• One‑way or mass communication with
diminishing incentives for face‑to‑face contact.
While local peacebuilders are utilising digital
technologies to streamline their work, connect All these risks are compounded by the fact that
to larger audiences and increase their visibility, the data collected and the mechanisms employed
they are consistently faced with added ethical to protect that data from breaches or misuse are
and programmatic challenges around the use of not always under the control of local peacebuilding
technology which can test their organisational and practitioners. As a result, data‑driven interventions
programmatic capacities and lead to potentially could be met with suspicion in contexts impacted by
harmful results. legacies of colonialism, repressive state surveillance
and/or mistrust of foreign corporations.90 Such
important risks can challenge existing assumptions
5.2.1. Ethical, security about how appropriate a proposed digital tool is
and privacy issues within a peacebuilding project, and can put into
question the ethical utility of digital technologies.
Local peacebuilders have a duty to prioritise Chris Simmonds (UK) epitomised this issue with a
and respond to the ethical, legal, security and simple question:
privacy‑related challenges that come from using
digital technologies and manipulating data in their “Sometimes the ethical questions can boil
programming. This involves defining clear processes down to, ‘Is it unethical to use digital tools
and procedures, ensuring that information and for peacebuilding in the first place?’”
data is not used for alternative or unintended
purposes – applying ‘do no harm’ principles and In response to this, participants largely agreed that
ensuring conflict sensitivity.88 Melanie Pinet (United technologies can be ethically used, but only after
Kingdom) explained: conducting in‑depth assessments and sensitisation
with partners and beneficiaries. Specifically, Lisa
“We need to ensure that digital Schirch (US) underlined the importance of weighing
technologies do not negatively disrupt inevitable trade‑offs while limiting the use of
social dynamics and be attentive of the technologies if the risk to harm is too great, while
unintended effects they have in complex Constantine Loum (Uganda) explained that the ethical
settings and social environments.” use of technologies can only be improved by regularly
sensitising beneficiaries on the benefits of technology.
While peacebuilding principles are widely Moreover, Arnold Djuma Batundi (DRC) also noted
and effectively used in ‘offline’ peacebuilding the importance of establishing an organisational
work, there are particular risks associated with security plan:
technology that need to be carefully considered,89
especially in fragile or volatile contexts. These “In my opinion, peacebuilders and human
include, among others: rights defenders must be first aware of the
risks that they are exposed to in their work.
• Protection of users who are unaware of the This is the most important step. Then they
risks of using technology deployed as part of a must set up an organisational security plan.
peacebuilding programme, including within the These are simple measures, but which allow
implementing organisation; them to reduce risks, vulnerabilities, threats
• Loss of control or misuse of personal data – and increase their capacity.”
unintentional or not;
• Research or access biases that prevent equal
participation of beneficiaries, including providing
real informed consent;

40 / Digital Pathways for Peace

Equally important, participants explained that 5.2.2. Demonstrating
addressing the ethical dilemmas requires active effectiveness and impact
participation of beneficiaries in a way that promotes
their ownership. Lassi Vasanen (Finland) talked Digital technologies are often espoused as
about service design principles, stating that: a veritable ‘gold mine’ for measuring and
documenting impact, providing cost‑effective and
“A starting point is to ensure that the end efficient ways to tabulate large amounts of data,
user is the one who determines whatever the reduce staff time and present detailed quantitative
solution will be. […] In practice, the fact that measures and/or visual representations. Certainly,
we do not introduce any tools or practices technological innovation has streamlined many
without discussing and consulting with our aspects of peacebuilding work, notably in the
partners first, which helps ensure that the collection and manipulation of data. In practice,
tech we use is usable for all.” however, the evidence base for this is somewhat
lacking. Reflecting on this issue, Valentina Baú
It is therefore critical to move away from a (Australia) stated:
‘supply‑driven’ use of technologies and employ
them in a way that is determined by local capacity. “There is often an over‑claiming of what
Jacqueline Lacroix (US) emphasised that: digital technologies seem to be able to
achieve in peacebuilding, and such claims
“In incorporating technology into projects, are not effectively supported by rigorous
the local media and technology context is evidence. Researchers and practitioners
typically the first thing to take into account. need to strengthen collaboration in order to
In program development, getting a sense of build solid evidence‑based approaches to
which types of media are most popular and the use of technologies in this context.”
the preferences of target populations for
communication are key in determining what Peacebuilders are only gradually adopting digital
technologies to include in trainings or use for strategies to their peacebuilding activities, while
collaboration, communication, etc.” many promising uses of digital tools remain largely
unexplored. Part of this issue has to do with
Aishatu Gwadabe (Germany/Benin) concluded that: practitioners’ unfamiliarity with new digital tools,
as well as a general perception that technology
“In particular, it is of utmost importance for comes with high costs and high uncertainty.91
us to use context relevant technologies that Moreover, the overabundance of data that often
do not ‘reinvent the wheel’.” comes with their use complicates evaluations, with
peacebuilding practitioners sometimes struggling
to parcel out usable data.92 Jacqueline Lacroix (US)
highlighted some of these limitations in digital
interventions in social media:

Digital programs such as these typically use measures

such as ‘clicks’ (engagement) or views. This can be valuable
along with limited demographic data (if available) to see if
campaigns or efforts are reaching targeted groups, but this
does not assess any changes in attitudes or behavior.

Digital Pathways for Peace / 41

 5.2.3 Sustainability of
HIVE Pakistan

tech‑based peacebuilding
Employing some digital technologies can be time
and potentially resource‑intensive, and often
requires training that demands investments in
staff capacity and organisational development. For
cash‑strapped peacebuilding organisations, this
can prove deeply problematic and may prevent
them from adopting tech‑based approaches to
their work. Part of the problem is that the devices,
networks and software that peacebuilders use
– and are becoming increasingly reliant on –
are often developed by the private sector, and
therefore practitioners have little say or control
over their business models.94 Elly Maloba (Kenya)
confirmed that:
To work around this issue, Lassi Vasanen (Finland)
highlighted the use of data mining to analyse “End user technologies such as GIS for
social media posts, and also suggested doing a mapping or even Windows OS [operating
sentiment analysis,93 but conceded that this is still system] are almost always proprietary,
in its early stages in the peacebuilding space. He requiring licensing and hence are costly to
concluded that: acquire or deploy.”

“Since the technology is already there it This financial sustainability issue is compounded
would be a pity not to use it to better plan, by the ‘projectisation’ of peacebuilding
implement and monitor our programmes.” programmes, where the initial “seed funding”
for tech‑based initiatives is often timebound,
As a starting point, Elly Maloba (Kenya) offered and those funds tend to end just as a tech‑based
three ways to help bridge the evidence gap: initiative has reached a level of maturity.95
Moreover, some funders in some contexts do not
“(1) Contextualising reports and real‑time prioritise the use of technology in peacebuilding
reporting to inform concise actions; programmes. Dennis Ekwere (Nigeria) attested in
(2) harnessing the power of data by his context that:
capturing vast amounts of indicators in
their complexity and multiplicity; and (3) “What still makes digital tech difficult in my
providing agency or strengthening platforms work is the low interest of funding partners
and collaborative actions.” in the use of technology in peacebuilding.”

It is important to note, however, that better data Lastly, digital technologies employed in
collection for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) can peacebuilding often rely on the participation
be accompanied by privacy and security concerns of beneficiary communities to stay up‑to‑date,
that may not be immediately apparent. While we and peacebuilders continue to face challenges in
have learned that digital technologies alone cannot maintaining high levels of participation after the
solve existing problems within the peacebuilding initial inception phase.
space, there is an opportunity to leverage them
in order to close the evidence gap and strengthen
peacebuilding interventions overall.

42 / Digital Pathways for Peace

 Greg Funnell
6. Pathways for collaboration

To tackle the aforementioned digital divides and process barriers, a multifaceted

and collaborative approach is necessary. This should include collaborative
investments in digital infrastructure and policies that manage the provision of ICT
services and promote digital literacy and e‑governance programmes. Civil society
coordination can further support more voices to take part in digital peacebuilding
processes and activate networks to support digital inclusion. And efforts should be
made to ensure that regulation and accountability are transparent and inclusive in a
way that protects individuals while embedding peacebuilding norms.

Digital Pathways for Peace / 43

 6.1. Promoting digital the possibility of using digital tools to enhance
access and inclusion inclusivity and participation. To that end, the
promotion of digital literacy is a key approach to
challenge growing inequalities, misinformation and
To address the challenge of digital access, it is conflicts.97 Chris Simmonds (UK) posited that:
necessary to develop the digital infrastructure
in low‑tech environments, which will require “I totally agree any future digital world
significant investments to target and expand has to include increased digital literacy –
limited mobile broadband services in order to this is increasingly happening around the
lower the cost of digital access across the globe. world, and should particularly be a focus
The importance of making investments in digital for peacebuilding audiences. This should
infrastructure is in line with recommendations include basic uses, but also on the ways in
from the UNCTAD (2017), the World Economic which bad actors manipulate technology.”
Forum (2016) and the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2017),96 Indeed, civil society actors can play an important
who call for complementary and collaborative role in upskilling communities to utilise digital
investments to address infrastructure challenges. tools and scrutinise information effectively. They
can act as a bridge between other stakeholders
Beyond investments, there is a clear need to such as governments and the private sector, and
promote access and inclusion by implementing support digital literacy to focus on civic agency and
digital literacy programmes. Critical digital and empowerment, specifically for marginalised groups.
media skills are a necessary measure to promote By training newcomers to the online space, civil
internet safety and enhance awareness of and society can help shape positive ‘influencers’ that
resilience against predatory threats online. More can promote digital inclusion and participation. Aji
importantly, digital literacy levels directly affect Ceesay (The Gambia/UK) said:

I think a further step can be improving digital literacy among

other young people who are interested in technology but lack
literacy (such as those from lower economic backgrounds or
from rural areas). This can help minimalize marginalization.

Moreover, developing digital literacy can further or overlooked by most users, particularly
help understand how users’ data is being collected where levels of literacy are lower.”
and used, helping to renegotiate the relationship
that individuals have with technology companies. Governments, on their end, could play a leading
Melanie Pinet (UK) stated that: role in creating and deploying accessible
e‑services that are citizen‑oriented and
“In relation to literacy, I would also be transparent, which would promote citizen
keen to see more education from civil engagement and civic participation. The design
society and schools around data privacy of these services would require a collaborative
and healthy use of digital technologies. approach, implicating local public authorities,
A number of tech companies’ business the private sector, academia and civil society.
model is based on providing free services E‑governance applications would provide a
in exchange of collecting users’ data (and powerful impetus in reducing digital divides and
advertising) and the consequences of restoring trust by promoting transparency in
sharing one’s data are too often unknown democratic processes.98

44 / Digital Pathways for Peace

6.2. Strengthening civil

Greg Funnell
society coordination

In the latest UN Annual Report,99 the

Secretary‑General stressed that peace challenges
are increasingly global and that collective action
from all partners is required. While peacebuilding
activities have shown the ability to have effective
impact at an individual and local level, “progress
can be more efficient, faster, and perhaps more
sustained, if individuals and organisations
dedicated to peace work together more
self‑consciously and deliberately.”100

For local peacebuilders, digital technologies

provide a critical opportunity to better coordinate
responses and programming. Alternative online
spaces allow large numbers of organisations to
organise discussions remotely in a “networked “To coordinate effective peacebuilding work
and dispersed‑like manner”.101 Social media offers among CSOs and peacebuilding individuals,
cost‑effective methods and access to large online we [peacebuilders] need to stop working in
communities to coordinate larger peace campaigns silos but rather foster digital collaboration
and amplify their message. And online security that enhances our organizational strengths
services have allowed civil society to share and and maximizes the impact of outreach. […]
archive data in a secure manner. Chris Simmonds We need galvanizing agendas to elevate
(UK) agreed that: peacebuilding in our digital era.”

“There are huge benefits it [digital To that end, Arnold Djuma Batundi (DRC) provided
technology] can bring in terms of a few key areas where civil society actors can focus
understanding and coordination. their efforts:
Something as simple as shared database
of audiences reached, supplemented with “Some strategies that could help us
increasing use of things like crisis‑mapping, coordinate and activate our work in digital
could have huge impacts on the way spaces could include the organization of
multiple peacebuilding actors coordinate community educational actions/campaigns
responses and campaigns.” on the positive use of digital technologies,
setting up information protection and
To capitalise on this potential, consultation security mechanisms, creating (digital)
participants emphasised the need to break working networks between civil society
through the silos that often undermine civil society organizations working on peacebuilding,
effectiveness and marshal their resources to speak and of course all of this can only be possible
as a collective. Christian Cito Cirhigiri (Belgium) when the organizations have sufficient
argued that: access to these technologies.”

Digital Pathways for Peace / 45

 6.3. Supporting regulation Key examples include the UK’s Investigative Powers
and accountability Act (2016) and the proposed EARN IT Act in the US.
Introduced by the US Congress with the expressed
goal of tackling child sexual exploitation, the law would
As discussed in section 2.2.2., digital technologies, effectively remove protections towards end‑to‑end
especially social media platforms, can be used by encryption – a critical tool used by many peacebuilders
spoilers to foment divisions and incite violence. This to protect themselves – and could lead companies to
is a major issue that has come to light in recent years, abandon this technology altogether.104 Melanie Pinet
catalysing debates around the need for regulation to (UK) further attested that this legislation would likely
mitigate risks. Indeed, digital technology companies prompt companies to aggressively moderate speech.
have been self‑regulating and moderating content Restrictive legislation of this kind, currently being
for decades, but for many this has proven insufficient considered by many states,105 can pose serious threats
as the dangers of hate speech and cyberattacks have to international human rights, especially those related
been amplified in political narratives. Moreover, online to freedom of expression, and it opens the space for
platforms’ reliance on automated filtering using AI abuse by less democratic states (see section 2.2.1.).
tools has exposed flaws and limitations, recently Jacqueline Lacroix (US) stated that:
highlighted by its failure to moderate COVID‑19
related misinformation.102 A challenge therein lies in “I don’t know that government regulation
the companies’ reluctance to effectively regulate their is the best approach, however, given the
platforms, as they have few incentives to do this from potential for corrupt governments to abuse
a business standpoint. Claire Devlin (UK) explained: regulations to target opposition figures.
Despite the currently deeply flawed system
“The companies have less incentive to of regulation by tech companies, I do think
regulate, as it could mean cutting out that this could be the right approach given
content that is actually really popular, plus more involvement by and consultation by
it costs money to implement regulation. human rights and conflict experts.”
The most popular social media platforms
are not liable under US law in which Increasing resistance to censorship and surveillance
they’re incorporated, so there’s no penalty has opened the space for an alternative option. While
for hosting inaccurate information, even government’s role in regulation is not disputed, some
if it’s hateful. Even if they would enforce experts have advocated the potential of putting in
regulation, do we want managers of private place a co‑regulatory system in which regulators would
companies deciding what is and isn’t collaborate with civil society and industry experts
acceptable content?” to reduce harm and create a safe space for online
communication.106 This could effectively increase levels
Given this reality, governments have an important of accountability as a multi‑stakeholder collaborative
role to play in the regulation of technology process would ensure that a wide range of principles and
companies. Indeed, internet regulation has come norms are reflected in the digital space, and ultimately
under intense scrutiny as governments have increase civil society’s ability to support more effective
come to grips with the dangers of social media, online regulation. Claire Devlin (UK) concluded that:
especially in light of increasing evidence that
disruptive communication tactics are being used to “I think the role of civil society peacebuilders
weaken democratic institutions and public trust in is enormous in holding companies to account
governance.103 This has led to an increasing trend instead of passing control to States. This
towards more restrictions to online communication, would mean us all hugely improving our
with new legislation being fashioned to hold understanding of the terms under which the
technology companies to account for the content most popular platforms, especially Facebook,
being posted by users on their platforms. actually regulate their content. NGO and
small tech firms could have a great impact by
collaborating more closely. It’s time to get to
know each other!”

46 / Digital Pathways for Peace

 HIVE Pakistan
7. Conclusions & recommendations

As demonstrated throughout the report, digital technologies can play a critical

role in contributing to conflict resolution and peacebuilding. They have helped
open new avenues and spaces for active citizen engagement and collective action,
empowering local voices to break down traditional power structures and redefine
the social contract through citizen expression and peaceful mobilisation. Likewise,
increased connectivity and the development of powerful online communities have
fostered positive dialogue and provided key opportunities to build a more inclusive
and equitable digital environment.

Digital Pathways for Peace / 47

 Yet, at the same, these same technologies present • Peacebuilders are increasingly utilising
corresponding risks and vulnerabilities that can advanced technologies in their peacebuilding
undermine peace, replicate power imbalances, interventions, including using AI and blockchain
and incite violence. Conflict actors, spoilers and programmes to collect data, as well as
autocratic government have been empowered interactive technologies such as virtual reality
by these tools to restrict, censor and survey and videogames to more actively engage people
dissidents as well as promote online polarisation in peacebuilding.
and disinformation campaigns, fomenting divisions
and increasing mistrust within digital society. • Peacebuilders have adopted a “hybrid”
Moreover, intersectional ‘digital divides’ have approach in their activities, marrying online
denied access and protection to swathes of people, and offline technologies to maximise their
further exacerbating global inequalities. reach and minimise risks of exclusion and
counter‑productive programming. Their
Despite the complex challenges facing adeptness in switching between analogue
peacebuilders, they continue to play important and digital tools has made them adaptable to
roles in preventing and resolving conflicts as the difficult environments and tuned in to local
world shifts into the digital space. Though not realities.
exhaustive, below are some innovative tech‑based
peacebuilding approaches that have been identified States and institutions are also responding to risks
in this report: of conflict, often with unhelpful or dangerous
legislation that calls for stricter regulation on
• Peacebuilders have enhanced their data digital platforms focused on censorship and
collection capabilities by crowdsourcing surveillance, inhibiting the rights and freedoms of
information and utilising mobile and satellite individual users and civil society actors. Likewise,
technologies to map out detailed conflict trends companies have responded by either minimizing
and hotspots on the ground. This has vastly the need for content regulation, using the
improved early warnings systems, enabling guise of free speech to prioritise their business
systematic and near real‑time data to be shared, models over the safety and security of users, or
which has greatly reduced the time needed for overreacting to social and political pressures and
critical responses. aggressively censoring content. Ensuring a balance
between community safety and security, digital
• Social media platforms, blogs, podcasts and civic rights, and the protection of civil society
online forums are being used by peacebuilders space online is central to solving key ethical and
as vehicles of peace promotion, enabling rapid security challenges that will determine how the
and sustained engagement through online digital era is shaped.
peace messaging and digital storytelling.
These techniques, bolstered by multimedia To reap the opportunities for peace provided by
capabilities, have built awareness around peace digital technologies, policymakers and donors
in a systematic way by connecting to users to must recognise the important and ongoing digital
relatable themes and individuals with lived divides that are undermining effective access and
experiences of conflict. inclusion to technology, and invest in the capacities
of peacebuilders to best capitalise on the use of
• Peacebuilders have also been able to tap into digital technologies for effective peacebuilding.
large and powerful online communities to To that end, this report argues that an increased
mobilise for peace and drive social change. support for, and strengthening of tech‑based
This is bolstered by open and inclusive spaces peacebuilding initiatives, combined with a fostering
for exchange and knowledge‑sharing, which of collaborative approaches that promote digital
have helped develop new partnerships and inclusion, will have a critical bearing on peace today
opportunities for collective action. and for future generations.

48 / Digital Pathways for Peace

In response to this, Peace Direct have developed For donors, funders and civil society
the following recommendations aimed at
international donors, governments and other • Increase support for tech‑based peacebuilding
actors responsible for crucial decisions related initiatives at the local level. Donors should
to the makeup, funding and implementation of provide material support and training to local
tech‑based peacebuilding efforts: civil society which would enable effective
tech‑based peacebuilding initiatives to scale
For governments and international bodies up in size. Flexible funding can help to develop
staff capacity and digital literacy while covering
• Promote digital literacy and e‑governance various licensing, data storage and server costs.
programmes to support digital inclusion in
online spaces and in tech‑based peacebuilding • Document and analyse the applications
activities. Developing accessible e‑governance of digital technologies in conflict‑affected
and digital literacy programmes will support settings, with lessons captured and shared
online civic participation and educate users on effectively. Employing digital technologies
data privacy and healthy digital environments. is not always the best approach to engage
These programmes should also include in conflict prevention and can potentially
regional language groups to provide greater replicate the divisions, tensions and power
access to local communities around the world. imbalances that exist in offline spaces. It
Raising this as a policy priority could: tackle is vital that civil society actors and donors
digital divides preventing marginalisation and tackle M&E design biases behind tech‑based
polarisation; reduce mistrust in governance solutions and provide effective solutions to the
structures; increase civic participation, and; build issues faced by peacebuilders and beneficiary
community resilience against misinformation. communities using technology, more in line with
a user‑centred and participatory approach.
• Strengthen human rights compliant regulatory
practices on digital platforms. Current levels • Develop and strengthen online civil society
of regulation by technology companies are not networks to expand effective peacebuilding
inclusive or transparent. Governments and campaigns and outreach. Where CSOs can
technology companies should ensure that any rally behind a unified agenda, they can show
regulation balances protecting individuals’ their collective strength in order to elevate
sensitive data and preventing the prevalence of peacebuilding in the digital space. Collective
misinformation, hate speech and inflammatory action can strengthen alternative narratives
messages. Government and private sector and help foster a wider digital culture of peace.
initiatives to improve transparency and Donors should strengthen and support such
accountability around content regulation efforts as well as the civil society networks
should be done in consultation with human behind them.
rights experts and peacebuilding experts, who
are best placed to work around the challenges
of specifically defined hate speech and
inflammatory language. In addition, resources
must be provided for stakeholders who cannot
afford or cannot access the consultations.

Digital Pathways for Peace / 49

 Appendix A: participants
Below is a list of the participants who took part in the online consultation.
We also acknowledge the contributions made by participants who wish to remain
anonymous. The details included here represent those provided by participants at
the time of the consultation, and may no longer reflect their current roles.

Abdikhayr Hussein Anna Dupont Catherine Dempsey Elly Maloba

Project Coordinator Advisor, Transitional Consultant in Project Executive Director of
Bareedo Platform Justice Management and Programmes
GIZ Development Sera‑Thabiti
Abdullahi Hassan Ahmad
Secretary Arnold Djuma Batundi Chinwe Ogochukwu ElsaMarie DSilva
Youth Development Founder Ikpeama Founder and CEO
Initiative Forum Coalition des Volontaires Academic Researcher Red Dot Foundation
pour la Paix et le (Safecity)
Ada Ichoja Ohaba Développement (CVPD) Chris Simmonds
Network Coordinator Analyst Eric Hakizimana
Do No Harm Humanitarian Ashima Kaul Moonshot CVE Burundian Peacebuilder
Development Initiative Co‑Founder
Yakjah Peace and Christian Cito Cirhigiri Garba Auwdu Talle
Adewale Bakare Reconciliation Network Founder Executive Director
Independent Expert Peacemaker 360 West Africa Islamic Peace
Modelling Global Bernardo Roa Initiative
Governance 2.0 Deputy Chief of Party Claire Devlin
DAI (Philippines) Conflict Adviser in the Hassan Mutubwa
Aishatu Gwadabe NGO sector Project Officer
International Peace Bida Simon Sebit The Network of
Advisor Accountant Constantine Loum Religious and Traditional
GIZ – Civil Peace Service Community Director Peacemakers
Empowerment For Community Network for
Aji Ceesay Creative Innovation Social Justice Illa Sani
Policy and Research (CECI‑UG) Secretary‑General
Assistant D. Nyandeh Sieh Club UUESCO UAM
Peace Direct Branka Panic Executive Director
Founder and CEO Franbarnie International Jacqueline Lacroix
Ami Carpenter AI for Peace (FOFI) Program Development
Associate Professor, Joan Consultant
B. Kroc School of Peace Bridget Moix Dennis Ekwere PeaceTech Lab
Studies US Executive Director Executive Director
University of San Diego Peace Direct Children and Young James Offuh
People Living for Peace Founder/CEO
Amy Grossbard Carolin Sokele United for Peace Against
Marketing and Junior Project Manager Dimitri Kotsiras Conflict International
Communications (Israel Berghof Foundation Research Analyst
Office) gGmbH Peace Direct Jane Esberg
EcoPeace Middle East Fellow, Economics of
Dylan Mathews Conflict
Amy Oyekunle CEO International Crisis
Lead Consultant Peace Direct Group/Princeton
Independent Development University
Consultants

50 / Digital Pathways for Peace

Joel Gabri Maria Fernanda Robayo Ndaye Marie Sagna Le Rob Ennals
Peace Technology Salcedo Caer Founder
Programmes Officer Program Officer Coordinator Talkbeat
Peace Direct World Leadership Alliance “KABONKETOOR”,
Association Régionale des Ruairi Nolan
Julie Hawke Marzieh Goudarzi Femmes pour la Recherche Head of Programmes
Dialogue and Learning Outreach, Advocacy and de la Paix en Casamance The Syria Campaign
Lead Policy Specialist
Build Up Generations For Peace Neil Jarman Sarah Phillips
Head of Policy and Senior Communications
Kiza Magendane Maude Morrison Research Officer
Knowledge Broker Deputy Director Peace Direct Peace Direct
The Broker Build Up
Nicholas Ross Travis Heneveld
Koudjo Mawuli Klevo Melanie Garson PhD Candidate Strategic Advisor
Founder and Coordinator Senior Teaching Australian National
Investing in Youth, NGO Fellow, International University Vahe Mirikian
Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding Policy
Landry Ninteretse International Security Nzie Simon Nti Officer
Burundian Peacebuilder University College London Environmental Engineer Peace Direct
United Nations
Larisa Epatko Melanie Moran Dr. Valentina Baú
Senior Communications Digital Fundraising and Ola Saleh Researcher and Lecturer
Officer Marketing Officer Advisor University of New South
Peace Direct Peace Direct The Kvinna till Kvinna Wales
Foundation
Lassi Vasanen Melanie Pinet Wonder Phiri
Researcher Research Fellow, Digital Paul Heidebrecht Director
Felm Societies Programme Director, Kindred Centre for Conflict
Overseas Development Credit Union for Peace Management and
Lena Slachmuijlder Institute (ODI) Advancement Transformation
Senior Vice President University of Waterloo
Search for Common Mohamed Farahat Yasser Dallal
Ground Legal Reviwe National Philani Hlophe Dhlamini Founder
Consultant Instructor – Open Source Haytsur Association
Lina Maria Jaramillo Rojas International Organisation Intelligence (RIEAS) &
Junior Specialist for Migration (IOM) Project Lead (IPSS) Zahed Yousuf
Kroc Institute for Research Institute for Founder
International Peace Muhammad Daud Jalal European & American Dialectiq.org
Studies Academic Studies (RIEAS) & Institute
University of Notre Dame American University of for Peace and Security
Afghanistan Studies (IPSS)
Lindsey Platt
Technical Advisor Muma Bih Yvonne Pradeep Mohapatra
Thoughts Partnerships Chairperson Secretary
Cameroon Women’s Peace UDYAMA
Lisa Schirch Movement. (CAWOPEM)
Senior Research Fellow Qamar Jafri
Toda Peace Institute Natasha Hall PhD Candidate, School of
MENA Regional Team Global, Urban and Social
Lumenge Lubangu Lead Studies
Legal Representative Europe Conflict and RMIT University Australia
Association des Rescapés Security (ECAS)
de Massacres de Makobola Consulting Ltd. Richard Ndi
de la RDC (ARMMK) Member of the Board of
Administration
Ecumenical Service for
Peace

Digital Pathways for Peace / 51

 Appendix B: glossary of terms and concepts
Algorithms: instructions given to Data exhaust: data trails left by Information Technology (IT): an
computer systems that allow such users’ online activity, behaviours and umbrella term which describes the
systems to make decisions based transactions. use of computers to process and
on a set of rules. For example, an store information.
online discussion platform may Digital divide: the gap that exists
automatically block posting of a between communities that have Information and Communications
piece of text if it contains certain different levels of access and literacy Technology (ICT): an expansion of
words. in regards to digital technologies. the term “Information Technology”
to include telecommunications
Artificial Intelligence (AI): the ability Digital literacy: the extent to which technology such as the internet and
for computer programs process, an individual is comfortably able to mobile phones.
learn from, information enabling make use of digital technologies,
them to complete tasks which such as computers, the internet, or Lexicon: the vocabulary of a
otherwise would have required mobile phones. language or branch of knowledge.
human guidance – such as visual
processing, writing coherent text, or Digital technologies: technologies Online/offline: the distinction
decision making. that make use of computer between activities that take place,
systems to process information. and are mediated by, the internet
Big data: extremely large data sets Such technologies could include, (online) and those that do not rely on
that modern computing power has for example, mobile phones, the the internet (offline)
made it possible and affordable to internet, or digital cameras
analyse. Peacetech: the use of technology to
Disinformation: the intentional support peacebuilding activities.
Blockchain: a technology that makes spread of false information in order
use of encryption to make it possible to misrepresent the truth or sow Polarisation: the divergence of
to record information in such a division. opinions and beliefs towards
way that the information cannot be extremes, with little space for middle
tampered with or changed, and does Doxing: to publish the private ground or compromise.
not depend on a central authority to personal information of another
verify the information’s authenticity. person or reveal the identity of a SMS: the technology that enables
The technology was popularised by person without their consent. mobile phone uses to send short text
the Bitcoin digital currency but has messages to other users.
been used in other applications. E‑governance: the use of digital
technologies to provide government Social media: online networks that
Crisis mapping: the use of digital services. allow users to share text, images,
technologies and data to quickly videos and other digital content.
create useful maps to aid responses Early Warning Early Response
to crisis situations. For example, (EWER): the gathering of data to Viral: the phenomena in which a
following the Haiti earthquake in alert to impending crisis situations, piece of digital content (such as an
2010 it was possible to use satellite such as conflicts or famine, and image or video), or an idea, rapidly
imagery and existing mapping data enable quick interventions. spreads across social networks and
to produce maps showing the worst the wider internet.
affected areas. End‑to‑end encryption: the
ability for two, or more, users to Virtual Reality (VR): the use of
Crowdsourcing: making use of communicate in such a way that specialised equipment and computer
digital technologies, such as the cannot be intercepted or read by programmes that allow full
internet or mobile phones, to allow a anyone other than the intended immersion in a computer‑generated
wider range of volunteers to perform recipient(s) environment. For example, such
particular tasks – such as data systems may require users to wear
collection or image analysis. Filter bubbles: the notion that a special headset that completely
through a process a combination replaces their vision with that
Dark Web: an area of the internet, of algorithms and self‑selection, generated by a computer.
usually only accessible by specialised internet users will often only be
software, which ensures anonymity exposed to a narrow range of news
for its users. and opinions.

52 / Digital Pathways for Peace

Notes
1 Taylor, A. (2015). The People’s Platform: Taking Back Power and 19 Fraenkel, E. (2014). A Critical Analysis of Digital Communications
Culture in the Digital Age. New York, NY: Macmillan. and Conflict Dynamics in Vulnerable Societies. Internews:
https://www.internews.org/sites/default/files/Internews_
2 Keffler, N. (2020). How Technology can help the global refugee DigComminconflict_2014-11.pdf
crisis. The New Economy: https://www.theneweconomy.com/
technology/how-technology-can-help-the-global-refugee-crisis 20 Dubow et. al., op.cit., p. 3.
3 SecDev Group. (2017). Digitally-Enabled Peace and Security: 21 Horwitz, J., Seetharamam, D. (2020). Facebook Executives Shut
Reflections for the Youth, Peace and Security Agenda: https://www. Down Efforts to Make Site Less Divisive. The Washington Journal:
youth4peace.info/system/files/2018-04/2.%20TP_Social%20 https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-it-encourages-
Media_SecDev.pdf division-top-executives-nixed-solutions-11590507499
4 Stevenson, A. (2018). Facebook Admits It was Used to Incite 22 Nazeer, T. (2020). Facebook’s Apology for Its Role in Sri Lanka’s
Violence in Myanmar. New York Times: https://www.nytimes. Anti-Muslim riots Should Spark Change. The Diplomat: https://
com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebook.html thediplomat.com/2020/05/facebooks-apology-for-its-role-in-sri-
lankas-anti-muslim-riots-should-spark-change/
5 Gigitashvili, G. (2019). The Kremlin Augments its Digital Tools for
Cracking Down on Protests. The Atlantic Council: https://medium. 23 Burke, A. (2020). Peace and the Pandemic: The Impact of Covid-19
com/dfrlab/the-kremlin-augments-its-digital-tools-for-cracking- on Conflict in Asia. DevPolicyBlog: https://devpolicy.org/peace-
down-on-protesters-18e158cd7b16 and-the-pandemic-the-impact-of-covid-19-on-conflict-in-
asia-20200414/
6 Dubow, T., Devaux, A., & Manville, C. (2017). Civic Engagement: How
Can Digital Technology Encourage Greater Engagement in Civil Society? 24 Fraenkel, op.cit., p.8.
Rand Europe: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/
perspectives/PE200/PE253/RAND_PE253.pdf 25 Manavis, S. (2018). Facebook Thinks it Might be Responsible for
Ethnic Cleansing in Myanmar. NewStatesman: https://www.
7 Hoffman, J. (2014). Conceptualising ‘Communication for newstatesman.com/world/asia/2018/11/facebook-thinks-it-
Peace’. Peacebuilding, 2 (1), pp. 100-117: https://doi. might-be-responsible-ethnic-cleansing-myanmar
org/10.1080/21647259.2013.866461
26 Lee, R. (2019). Extreme Speech in Myanmar: The Role of State Media
8 Robertson, D., & Ayazi, M. (2019). How Women are Using Technology in the Rohingya Forced Migration Crisis. International Journal of
to Advance Gender Equality and Peace. USIP: https://www.usip. Communication (13): https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/
org/publications/2019/07/how-women-are-using-technology- view/10123/2718
advance-gender-equality-and-peace
27 Business for Social Responsibility. (2018). Human Rights Impact
9 Cho, A., Byrne, J., & Pelter, Z. (2020). Digital Civic Engagement Assessment: Facebook in Myanmar. BSR: https://fbnewsroomus.files.
by Young People. UNICEF, pp. 1-27: https://www.unicef.org/ wordpress.com/2018/11/bsr-facebook-myanmar-hria_final.pdf
globalinsight/media/706/file/UNICEF-Global-Insight-digital-civic-
engagement-2020.pdf 28 Mozur, P. (2018). A Genocide Incited on Facebook, with Posts from
Myanmar’s Military. The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.
10 Tellidis, I., & Kappler, S. (2016). Information and Communication com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html
Technologies in Peacebuilding: Implications, Opportunities and
Challenges Cooperation and Conflict, 51 (1), pp. 75-93: http://dro. 29 Hogan, L., & Safi, M. (2018). Revealed: Facebook Hate Speech
dur.ac.uk/17323/1/17323.pdf Exploded in Myanmar During Rohingya Crisis. The Guardian: https://
www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/03/revealed-facebook-
11 LeFebvre, R.K. (2016). Leveraging the Voices of Social Media for hate-speech-exploded-in-myanmar-during-rohingya-crisis
Peace and Security. S+F (4): https://doi.org/10.5771/0175-
274X-2016-4-231 30 Warofka, A. (2018). An Independent Assessment of the Human Rights
Impact of Facebook in Myanmar. Facebook: https://about.fb.com/
12 Frantz, E., Kendall-Taylor, A., & Wright, J. (2020). Digital Repression news/2018/11/myanmar-hria/
in Autocracies. V-Dem Working Papers, University of Gothenburg:
https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/18/d8/18d8fc9b-3ff3- 31 Jarman, N. (1999). Drawing Back from the Edge: Community Based
44d6-a328-799dc0132043/digital-repression17mar.pdf Response to Violence in North Belfast. Belfast, Ireland: Community
Development Centre.
13 Amnesty International. (2018). Amnesty International Among
Targets of NSO-powered Campaign. Amnesty.org: https://www. 32 Eagle, N. (2010). SMS Uprising: Mobile Phone Activism in Africa.
amnesty.org/en/latest/research/2018/08/amnesty-international- Nairobi, Kenya: Pambakuza Press.
among-targets-of-nso-powered-campaign/ 33 Noyes, A., & Yarwood, J. (2013). The AU Continental Early
14 Miklian, J., & Hoelscher, K. (2017). A New Research Approach Warning System: From Conceptual to Operational? International
for Peace Innovation. Innovation and Development Peacekeeping, 20 (3), 249-262: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/
(8), 2, 189-207: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ abs/10.1080/13533312.2013.838393?journalCode=finp20
pdf/10.1080/2157930X.2017.1349580 34 Miklian & Hoelscher, op.cit., p. 3.
15 Human Rights Watch. (2020). Covid-19 Apps Pose Serious Human 35 Firchow, P. et. al. (2016). PeaceTech: The Liminal Spaces of Digital
Rights Risks. HRW: https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/05/13/covid- Technology in Peacebuilding. International Studies Perspectives
19-apps-pose-serious-human-rights-risks (00), 1-39.
16 Lefebvre, op.cit., p. 233. 36 Scaturro, G. (2016). Tech for Peace: Facts and Figures. SciDevNet:
17 Dubow, op.cit., p.3. https://bit.ly/3deT9N1

18 Ward, A. (2018). ISIS’s Use of Social Media Still Poses A Threat to 37 Dajer, D. (2018). Cracking the Code Tech for Peace: International
Stability in the Middle East and Africa. RAND: https://www.rand.org/ Perspectives of Peacetech Research and Practice. British Council:
blog/2018/12/isiss-use-of-social-media-still-poses-a-threat-to- https://nireland.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/j063_02_
stability.html peace_and_beyond_essay_cracking_the_code_of_tech_for_peace_-_
international_perspectives_of_peacetech_research_and_practice_
final_web.pdf

Digital Pathways for Peace / 53

 38 Firchow et. al., op. cit., p.2. 57 Puig Larrauri, H., & Kahl, A. (2013). Technology for Peacebuilding.
Stability: International Journal of Security and Development, 2 (3),
39 Ivanovitch, A. (2017). Virtual Reality: The Frontier of Peacemaking. p. Art. 61: https://www.stabilityjournal.org/articles/10.5334/sta.
Center for Empathy in International Affairs: https://www. cv/
centerforempathy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/CEIA-
Virtual-Reality-The-Frontier-of-Peacemaking.pdf 58 Crozier, R. (2020). Covid-19: Four Ways Peacebuilders Respond.
International Alert: https://www.international-alert.org/blogs/
40 Vaughn, E. (2019). A Kid in a Refugee Camp Thought Video Games covid-19-four-ways-peacebuilders-can-respond
Fell from Heaven. Now He Makes Them. NPR: https://www.npr.org/
sections/goatsandsoda/2019/12/11/786740227/a-kid-in-a- 59 Foundation for Partnership Initiatives in the Niger Delta. (2019).
refugee-camp-thought-video-games-fell-from-heaven-now-he- An Integrated Conflict Early Warning and Early Response System:
makes-them Manual for Data Collection and Analysis. PIND: https://fundforpeace.
org/2020/02/12/an-integrated-conflict-early-warning-early-
41 Hallowell, B. (2016). How to Create Effective Messages About response-system/
Peacebuilding. American Friends Service Committee: https://
www.afsc.org/blogs/media-uncovered/how-to-create-effective- 60 ‘Big data’ refers to very large and complex data that requires some
messages-about-peace-building form of automated processing to analyse. Big data analytics look
into the variability of data, including data flows, as well as the
42 Oatley, N. (2014). Communication for Peacebuilding: Practices, Trends veracity of data, to determine insights.
and Challenges. Search for Common Ground: https://www.sfcg.org/
wp-content/uploads/2014/02/communication-for-peacebuilding- 61 Idris, I. (2019). Benefits and Risks of Big Data Analytics in Fragile and
practices-trends-challenges.pdf Conflict Affected States. K4D: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.
uk/media/5d1c7da440f0b609cfd974a1/605_Benefits_and_Risks_
43 O’Farrell, K. (2019). A War of Words: Why Counter-Messaging to of_Big_Data_Analytics_in_Fragile_and_Conflict_Affected_States__
Prevent ‘Violent Extremism’ is Counter-Productive. Saferworld: FCAS_.pdf
https://www.saferworld.org.uk/resources/news-and-analysis/
post/827-a-war-of-words-why-counter-messaging-to-prevent- 62 Arcila, B.B. (2020). A Human Centric Framework to Evaluate the Risks
aviolent-extremisma-is-counter-productive Raised by Contact-tracing Applications. ICT for Peace Foundation:
https://ict4peace.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Beatriz-
44 Connaughton, S.L., & Berns, J. (2020). Locally Led Peacebuilding: Botero-A-Human-Rights-Centric-Framework-to-Evaluate-the-
Global Case Studies. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. Security-Risks-Raised-by-Contact-Tracing-Applications_FINAL_
45 Simpson, G. (2018). The Missing Peace: Independent Progress Study BUA-6.pdf
on youth, Peace and Security. UN Population Fund (UNFPA): 63 Idris, op. cit., p. 7.
https://www.youth4peace.info/system/files/2018-10/youth-
web-english.pdf 64 Bitcoin refers to a digital currency which is not regulated by any
central bank.
46 UNICEF. (2020). Six Out of Ten COVID-19 Rumours in South Sudan
are False. UN Children’s Fund: https://www.unicef.org/southsudan/ 65 Van Ooijen, C. (2017). How Blockchain can Change Voting: The
press-releases/six-out-ten-covid-19-rumours-south-sudan-are- Colombia Peace Plebiscite. OECD Forum Network: https://www.
not-true oecd-forum.org/users/76644-charlotte-van-ooijen/posts/28703-
how-blockchain-can-change-voting-the-colombian-peace-
47 Higgins, J.W. (2011). Peace-building Through Listening, Digital plebiscite
Storytelling and Community Media in Cyprus. GMJ: Mediterranean
Edition, 6 (1), pp. 1-13: http://mediaprof.org/acm/acm2012/Xtra_ 66 Alliance for Peacebuilding. (2020). The Edge of Crisis: Covid-
Higgins_Cyprus_GMJ-ME_6.1_Spring_2011.pdf 19’s Impact on Peacebuilding & Measures to Stabilize the
Field. AfP: https://allianceforpeacebuilding.app.box.com/
48 Grant, N., & Bolin, L.B. (2016). Digital Storytelling: A Method for s/1snnrcyvhp4ef2e8bnx27o92extzyu83
Engaging Students and Increasing Cultural Competency. The Journal
of Effective Teaching, 16 (3), pp. 44-61: https://uncw.edu/jet/ 67 Ottaway, M. (2020). The Null Effect of COVID-19 on Conflict: Why
articles/vol16_3/grant.pdf Iraq and Yemen Keep Fighting. The Wilson Center: https://www.
wilsoncenter.org/article/null-effect-covid-19-conflict-why-iraq-
49 Peace constituency refers to a network of individuals who act in and-yemen-keep-fighting
concert in order to build sustainable peace.
68 Morris, S. (2020). ‘Nature Has Shaken Us’: Welsh Youths’ 2020
50 Dubow et. al., op.cit., p.2. Message to the World. The Guardian UK: https://www.theguardian.
51 Firchow et. al., op.cit., p.7. com/uk-news/2020/may/18/nature-has-shaken-us-welsh-youths-
2020-message-to-the-world
52 Pinckey, J. (2020). Social Movements Can Take the Advantage Back
by Thinking About How to Operate in the Digital Landscape. USIP: 69 We The Peoples. (2020). Peace Radio Mikado FM: Navigating the
https://www.usip.org/publications/2020/04/amid-coronavirus- COVID-19 Pandemic and Infodemic. Medium: https://medium.com/
online-activism-confronts-digital-authoritarianism we-the-peoples/peace-radio-mikado-fm-navigating-the-covid-19-
pandemic-and-infodemic-af63841d803
53 ‘Slacktivism’ refers to the practice of supporting a political or
social cause by means such as social media or online petitions, 70 Wellner, T. (2020). Working for Peace in East Africa During the
characterised as involving very little effort or commitment. COVID-19 Crisis. Quakers in Britain: https://www.quaker.org.uk/
blog/working-for-peace-in-east-africa-during-the-covid-19-crisis
54 Brechenmacher, S., Carothers, T., & Youngs, R. (2020). Civil
Society and the Coronavirus: Dynamics Despite Disruption. Carnegie 71 Nyunt, O. (2020). Digital Frontlines during the Battle Against
Endowment for International Peace: https://carnegieendowment. Covid-19 in Myanmar. Heinrich Boll Stiftung: https://mm.boell.org/
org/2020/04/21/civil-society-and-coronavirus-dynamism- en/2020/04/02/digital-frontlines-during-battle-against-covid-19-
despite-disruption-pub-81592 myanmar

55 Elliott, T., & Earl, J. (2018). Organizing the Next Generation: 72 Dada, G. J. (2020). South Sudan Youth Use Peace Tech, Bicycles to
Youth Engagement with Activism Inside and Outside of Battle COVID-19. Peacenews: https://www.peacenews.com/single-
Organizations. Social Media + Society, 4 (1): https://doi. post/2020/05/10/South-Sudan-youth-use-peace-tech-bicycles-
org/10.1177/2056305117750722 to-battle-COVID-19-misinformation

56 SecDev Group, op.cit., p. 10.

54 / Digital Pathways for Peace

73 Ramo, S. (2020). Gendering COVID-19: Implications for 92 PwC. (2019). Challenges and Solutions in Monitoring & Evaluating
Women, Peace and Security. LSE Blogs: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/ International Development Cooperation. PricewaterhouseCoopers:
wps/2020/04/01/gendering-covid-19-implications-for-women- https://www.pwc.nl/nl/assets/documents/challenges-in-digital-
peace-and-security/ innovation.pdf
74 Yoon, H., & Leclerc. K. (2020). Solidarity & Peace Amidst the 93 Sentiment analysis refers to the process of computationally
Pandemic: Young Women Leaders Meet Online for the First-Ever Global identifying and categorising opinions expressed in a piece of text
Dialogue. Global Network of Women Peacebuilders: https://gnwp. in order to determine whether the writer’s attitude towards a
org/ywl-global-dialogue/ particular topic is positive, negative or neutral.
75 Flores, C. E. (2020). Post-Crisis Hackathon: Ecuadorian NGOs 94 Faith, B., op.cit., p.7.
Crowdsource for a World after Covid-19. Global Voices: https://
globalvoices.org/2020/06/11/post-crisis-hackathon-ecuadorian- 95 SecDev Group, op.cit., p.5.
ngos-crowdsource-for-a-world-after-covid-19/ 96 Chetty, K. et al. (2018). Bridging the digital divide: Measuring
76 A digital divide refers to the uneven distribution in the access to, digital literacy. Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment
use of, or impact of technology between different groups. E-Journal, ISSN 1864-6042, Kiel Institute for the World Economy
(IfW), Kiel, Vol. 12 (23), pp. 1-20, http://dx.doi.org/10.5018/
77 Faith, B. (2019). Digital Technologies Use in Development Programme economics-ejournal.ja.2018-23
Design, Delivery and M&E in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Setting. K4D:
Knowledge, Evidence and Learning for Development: https://assets. 97 Roy, S., & Kundu, V. (2017). Promoting Youth Participation for
publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d0ceba540f0b6200a1c2696/606_ Peace and Intercultural Dialogue Through New Media and Digital
Digital_Technologies_.pdf Literacy. Research Expo International Multidisciplinary Journal,
vol. 7: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323547406_
78 UNCTAD. (2019). Digital Economy Report 2019: Value of Creation PROMOTING_YOUTH_PARTICIPATION_FOR_PEACE_AND_
and Capture, Implications for Developing Countries. New York, INTERCULTURAL_DIALOGUE_THROUGH_NEW_MEDIA_AND_
NY, United Nations: https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ DIGITAL_LITERACY
der2019_en.pdf
98 Stoiciu, A. (2011). The Role of e-Governance in Bridging the Digital
79 Hernandez, K. & Roberts, T. (2018). Leaving No One Behind Divide. UN Chronicle: https://doi.org/10.18356/d51f530b-en
in a Digital World. Digital and Technology Cluster Institute of
Development Studies: https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/ 99 United Nations (2019). Report of the Secretary-General on the Work
bitstream/handle/20.500.12413/14147/Emerging%20Issues_ of the Organization. New York, NY: United Nations Publications:
LNOBDW_final.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://www.un.org/annualreport/files/2019/09/Annual-report-
SG-2019-EN-Complete-Web.pdf
80 Poushter, J., Bishop, C., & Chwe, H. (2018). Social Media Use
Continues to Rise in Developing Countries but Plateaus Across 100 Woodrow, P. (2019). Framework for Collective Impact in
Developed Ones. Pew Research Center: https://www.pewresearch. Peacebuilding. CDA Collaborative Learning Projects: https://
org/global/2018/06/19/social-media-use-continues-to-rise-in- reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Final_Framework_
developing-countries-but-plateaus-across-developed-ones/ Report.pdf

81 Chetty, K. et. al. (2018). Bridging the Digital Divide: Measuring Digital 101 Widmer & Gossenbacher, op.cit., p.5.
Literacy. Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal: 102 Larsen, S., & Zahra, L. (2020). How COVID-19 is Intensifying
http://dx.doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2018-23 Content Moderation’s Flaws. Global Voices: https://globalvoices.
82 Hernandez & Roberts, op.cit., 16. org/2020/06/03/how-covid-19-is-intensifying-content-
moderations-flaws/
83 Sorgner, A. et. al. (2018). Bridging the Gender Digital Gap. G20
Insights Policy Brief: https://www.g20-insights.org/policy_briefs/ 103 Bennett, W.L., & Livingston, S. (2018). The Disinformation Order:
bridging-the-gender-digital-gap/ Disruptive Communication and the Decline of Democratic Institutions.
European Journal of Communications, 33 (2), pp. 122-139: https://
84 Clark, G. (2018). The Great Firewall of China. Bloomberg News: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0267323118760317
https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/great-firewall-of-china
104 Newman, L.H. (2020). The EARN It Act is a Sneak Attack on
85 Ratcliffe, R., & Okiror, S. (2019). Millions of Ugandans Quit Internet Encryption. Wired: https://www.wired.com/story/earn-it-act-
Services as Social Media Tax Takes Effect. The Guardian UK: https:// sneak-attack-on-encryption/
www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/feb/27/
millions-of-ugandans-quit-internet-after-introduction-of-social- 105 Griffiths, J. (2019). Governments are Rushing to Regulate the
media-tax-free-speech Internet. Users Could End Up Paying the Price. CNN: https://edition.
cnn.com/2019/04/08/uk/internet-regulation-uk-australia-intl-
86 Kumar, A. (2020). Shutting Down the Internet to Shut Up Critics. gbr/index.html
Human Rights Watch: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/
shutting-down-the-internet-to-silence-critics 106 London School of Economics and Political Science. (2018).
The Essential Elements of the New Internet Governance: Diversity,
87 Miklian & Hoelscher, op.cit., p. 192. Optimism, and Independence. LSE Media Policy Project: https://
blogs.lse.ac.uk/medialse/2018/08/23/the-essential-elements-
88 See Open Rights Group’s Ethical Tools Report and JustPeace Labs’ of-the-new-internet-governance-diversity-optimism-and-
Ethical Guidelines for PeaceTech (2017). independence/
89 JustPeace Labs. (2017). Ethical Guidelines for PeaceTech.
JustPeace Labs: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_
dok2SepWYeZk5OazJvYi1qVTEwUWhLR2lGclRueU5nM2tN/
view
90 Latonero, M., & Gold, Z. (2015). Data, Human Rights & Human
Security. Data & Society. SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.
cfm?abstract_id=2643728
91 Ibid, p.3.

Digital Pathways for Peace / 55

 HIVE Pakistan
About Peace Direct

Peace Direct works with local people to stop For more information on this series of reports,
violence and build sustainable peace. We believe please contact us.
that local people should lead all peacebuilding
efforts, and this report is the latest in a series www.peacedirect.org
canvassing local views on violent conflicts around www.peaceinsight.org
the world in an effort to highlight local capacities www.platform4dialogue.org
for peace and local expertise.

/peacedirect @peacedirect /peacedirect /peace‑direct

Registered charity in England and Wales no 1123241 | Registered 501(c)(3)