New Information & News Stream


A new news and information feed (in English) on peace processes

This is new source of news and information about peacebuilding, mediation and peace processes around the world. This app (designed by has enabled our Co-Curators to draw on more than 500 sources (and growing) of published news. It is available free (just follow the site on your browser) or to have as an app (Factr) on you iPhone. This is a resource for anyone engaged or interested in the practical work of mediation and peacebuilding. It is premised on the idea that relevant comparative experiences are are rich source of ideas and inspiration – and it provides a steady flow. of these. Normally buried in the relative obscurity particular geographies and under the preponderance of news on violence and war, these selected articles make the case for the clear and transparent value of efforts to prevent, resolve and transform organised armed conflicts. Unlike other sites related to peace, Peace Talks is focussed on news and information on building peace by peaceful means.


Screen Shot 2017-12-10 at 18.16.42

What is in and what is out (*and why)

Using 150 words (and growing *see below), we have sought to create a broad and inclusive filter that, together, broadly defines applied peacebuilding. It is as broad as a list of words that describe all kinds of interventions (by many people and many types of organisations) that are purposefully designed to sustain peace.

Of course there are no clear boundaries, but editorially we are seeking to prioritise deliberate interventions and significant positive changes in conflict contexts and exclude most diplomatic statements, visits and handshakes (articles about which are large in number) and also more indirect educational events like workshops and publications. Here are the criteria we are using in our inclusive approach: Peace_Talks_Search_Criteria. While we have not listed it here, we also have an even larger number of exclusion terms that help the stream run clean and these mostly relate to violence, sport and commerce.

We are very eager to have feedback on whether we should include additional search terms (please send them in), and your views on whether this focus is a legitimate and useful one.

Where are the stories of civil society/NGO/community peacebuilding?

As we have a special interest in uncovering experiences and perspectives that are otherwise hard to find or distinguish, we admit to being proactive in our approach to ensuring diversity of both sources and subjects. We are aware of the vital and creative roles in mediation and peacebuilding played by community leaders and local and international community and nongovernmental organisations, but we struggle to ensure their fair representation in this stream. We are actively looking for sources, including organisational websites – as close as possible to their sources, and would appreciate the suggestion of our readers. Of course, there are many reasons why many intervenors make an active choice to keep their stories out of the media, but if people and policy makers are going to better understand and value the interventions of peacebuilders these stories will need to be made public.

Sign-up as a Contributor

While anyone can have the access of a Viewer, if you would like to be a Contributor (which permissions that enable to you to post up new materials or highlight articles at any time), just send an email to

Join us as a Co-curator

Our ideal is that this resource flows as a reader co-curated stream.  We aim to have a minim of ten Co-curators, with the full access privileges to post new content, add new (RSS) sources, add new filter (inclusion/exclusion) terms, and to help keep the stream running focussed and relevant by ‘hiding’ irrelevant stories. This requires a commitment to visit the site at least one or more times a week.


While the site has a search function, if you have a particular geographic or thematic interest, articles can be tagged and the App has a great facility for generating bespoke and shareable reports. The site would make a very useful data source for students with an interest in peace journalism.

Please take a minute to give us feedback

This is still in development stage so we need to know if you are encountering any glitches of finding anything difficult to navigate or whether you are finding it useful. (send an email to

Spread the word!

Please help us to promote the availability of the site through your networks and social media contacts. It was made to be used. The designers at Factr have also created a widget if you would be interested in adding this feed to your website please get in touch.

Thank you and we hope you find it useful,

/The Co-Curators

Reflections on DFID’s Recent Conflict Research Programme Tender

Probably most organisations with links to DFID and to the field of practice of peacebuilding will know of their recent call for a consortium to undertake a four-year(+) and six million pound project to explore two big questions to inform future UK government decision making:

“What works in addressing violent conflict?”, and

“How do complex and persistent violent conflicts evolve?”

It is one of the unintended consequences of DFID’s decision to rely on a commercial tendering process that they have discouraged organisations and individuals from coming together to, build on the thinking that has gone before, creating a true global talent pool. Instead a great deal of time will have been wasted in this highly competitive process.

This is an opportunity for all those applying themselves to DFID’s Big Questions to revisit two milestone pieces of work, each by leading organisation in field of peacebuilding, which sought to address these two questions. The first, by the OECD DAC with substantial forward thinking from the team at CDA, Collaborative Learning Projects in the US, and the second by the very thoughtful Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation

OECD/DAC Guidance on “Evaluating Peacebuilding”

This important, if rather dry, piece of work doesn’t answer DFID’s question of ‘What Works?’ but does give extremely useful guidance on how you might find out whether and how a peacebuilding intervention has (or has not) worked, and why.  I particularly like their useful table ‘B.1.’ (on page) which I see as an important draft typology of ‘domains of change’ relevant to peacebuilding. I would also recommend reading the earlier paper that lead to this guidance from CDA. I think it’s interesting to ask, if this does not adequately answer DFID’s question (and it clearly doesn’t) why not and what does that say about the enquiry?

A synthesised report of their “Violence and Transition” Project

This is a fascinating and important paper which explores the question of what are “the factors that influence the relationship between violence and transition and their significance for processes of democratisation”? Their multi-disciplinary approach was groundbreaking, and they came up with a fascinating framework of “different fault-lines and factors of violence in a trajectory over time”. They identify, what they called, a number of “conceptual lessons” about the relationship between violence and democratic transition.

I think both their methods and their findings are relevant for the consortium that seeks to help DFID explore their on evolution conflicts away from violence.

I’d be interested to hear from others what they think of are key resources which help us all to answer the question of how to be more discerning and more effective in our work to prevent and address:

” the innumerable possible substantive occasions of war.” (Adam Curle)

Good luck to DFID on shortlisting the bidder, and to everyone seeking to be the winning consortium.