Societies have sought to improve the outputs of their agricultural producers for thousands of years. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, efforts to convey agricultural knowledge to farmers became known as extension services, a term adopted from programs at Oxford and Cambridge designed to extend the knowledge generated at universities to surrounding communities. Traditionally, extension services have emphasized a top-down model of technology transfer that encourages and teaches producers to use crop and livestock varieties and agricultural practices that will increase food production. More recently, extension services have moved toward a facilitation model, in which extension agents work with producers to identify their needs and the best sources of expertise to help meet those needs. On May 1, 2012, the Roundtable on Science, Technology, and Peacebuilding held a workshop in Washington, DC, to explore whether and how extension activities could serve peacebuilding purposes. The Roundtable is a partnership between the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP). It consists of senior executives and experts from leading governmental organizations, universities, corporations, and nongovernmental organizations, was established in 2011 to make a measurable and positive impact on conflict management, peacebuilding, and security capabilities. Its principal goals are: To accelerate the application of science and technology to the process of peacebuilding and stabilization; To promote systematic, high-level communication between peacebuilding and technical organizations on the problems faced and the technical capabilities required for successful peacebuilding; and To collaborate in applying new science and technology to the most pressing challenges for local and international peacebuilders working in conflict zones.

Operational systems engineering is a methodology that identifies the important components of a complex system, analyzes the relationships among those components, and creates models of the system to explore its behavior and possible ways of changing that behavior. In this way it offers quantitative and qualitative techniques to support the design, analysis, and governance of systems of diverse scale and complexity for the delivery of products or services. Many peacebuilding interventions function essentially as the provision of services in response to demands elicited from societies in crisis. At its core, operational systems engineering attempts to understand and manage the supply of services and product in response to such demands. Harnessing Operational Systems Engineering to Support Peacebuilding is the summary of a workshop convened in November 2012 by the Roundtable on Science, Technology, and Peacebuilding of the National Academy of Engineering and the United States Institute of Peace to explore the question "When can operational systems engineering, appropriately applied, be a useful tool for improving the elicitation of need, the design, the implementation, and the effectiveness of peacebuilding interventions?" The workshop convened experts in conflict prevention, conflict management, postconflict stabilization, and reconstruction along with experts in various fields of operational systems engineering to identify what additional types of nonnumerical systems methods might be available for application to peacebuilding.

This open access book responds to the urgent need to improve how we prevent and resolve conflict. It introduces Adaptive Peacebuilding through evidence-based research from eight case studies across Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America. It also considers how China and Japan view and practice peacebuilding. The book focuses on how peacebuilders design, implement and evaluate programs to sustain peace, how interactions between external and local actors have facilitated or hindered peacemaking, and how adaptation to complexity and uncertainty occurred in each case study.

On May 23, 2012, the Roundtable on Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding convened a workshop at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) to investigate data sharing as a means of improving coordination among US government and nongovernment stakeholders involved in peacebuilding and conflict management activities. Using Data Sharing to Improve Coordination in Peacebuilding:Report of a Workshop by the National Academy of Engineering and the United States Institute of Peace: Roundtable on Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding addresses the following question: What needs must a data sharing system address to create more effective coordination in conflict zones and to promote the participation of federal agencies and nonfederal organizations in Peacebuilding? In addition, the workshop served as a means to obtain feedback on the UNITY system, a data-sharing platform developed by the Department of Defense (DOD) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The Roundtable was established in 2011 as a partnership between USIP and the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) to make a measurable and positive impact on conflict management, peacebuilding, and security capabilities by bringing together leaders from the technical and peacebuilding communities. Its members are senior executives and experts from leading governmental organizations, universities, corporations, and nongovernmental organizations. Its principal goals are: 1. To accelerate the application of science and technology to the process of peacebuilding and stabilization; 2. To promote systematic, high-level communication between peacebuilding and technical organizations on the problems faced and the technical capabilities required for successful peacebuilding; and 3. To collaborate in applying new science and technology to the most pressing challenges faced by local and international peacebuilders working in conflict zones. The Roundtable is strongly committed to action-oriented projects, and the long-term goal of each is to demonstrate viability with a successful field trial. The Roundtable has selected a portfolio of high-impact peacebuilding problems on which to focus its efforts: 1. Adapting agricultural extension services to peacebuilding, 2.Using data sharing to improve coordination in peacebuilding, 3. Sensing emerging conflicts, and 4. Harnessing systems methods for delivery of peacebuilding services.

As the world turns its attention to the reconstruction of Afghanistan and Iraq following recent conflicts in these countries, the issue of post-conflict peacebuilding takes centre stage. This collection presents a timely and original overview of the field of peace studies and offers fresh analytical tools which promote a critical reconceptualization of peace and conflict, while also making specific reference to peacebuilding strategies employed in recent international conflicts.

The African continent has been racked with war in the years since decolonization. In the aftermath of violent conflict, peace is often fragile. With Durable Peace, Taisier M. Ali and Robert O. Matthews have brought together leading scholars to discuss the experiences of ten African countries — Angola, Ethiopia, Liberia, Mozambique, Rwanda, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Uganda, and Zimbabwe — in recovering from violent civil war. In this series of remarkable and thought-provoking essays, the contributors shed light on the process of peacebuilding. Collectively, they demonstrate that if efforts to restore peace in war-torn societies are to be successful, such efforts must be wide in scope, involving security and political issues, as well as economic development and socio-psychological reconciliation. Additionally, they must be extended over long periods of time and, above all else, anchored in the local community. Peacebuilding is a difficult process, subject to frequent setbacks, and sometimes outright failure. Durable Peace concludes that any peacebuilding effort must include at least four building blocks: a secure environment, new political institutions that are broadly representative, a healthy economy, and a mechanism for dealing with injustices of the past and future. How these blocks are put together will vary, but if they are arranged to fit the specific local circumstances, the outcome will likely be self-sustaining peace.

Ethiopia is exposed to a wide range of disasters associated with the country’s extensive dependence on rainfed subsistence agriculture, climate change, resource degradation, diverse geoclimatic and socio-economic conditions and conflicts. Drought and floods are the major challenges, but a number of other threats affect communities and livelihoods. These include conflict, desert locust, fall armyworm, frost and hail, crop pests and diseases, livestock diseases, human diseases, landslides, earthquakes, and urban and forest fires. Every source of evidence suggests that Ethiopia would feel the human and economic impacts of climate change intensely, and the impacts will only continue to grow if the country continues a business-as-usual approach to crisis response, and will not be able to manage the increasing scale of the challenges. Thus, there is call by all stakeholders for a paradigm shift in the way the country deals with communities at risk, in order to take preventive actions to reduce exposure, vulnerability and impact at local level. This requires moving away from a reactive system that solely focuses on drought and supply of life-saving humanitarian relief and emergency responses during disasters to a comprehensive proactive disaster and climate risk management approach, including climate change adaptation, among which are interventions to enhance livelihood diversification, social protection programmes and risk transfer mechanisms. Furthermore, resilient agrifood systems support should include a range of proven interventions that are context-relevant and cover the whole agrifood system, such as increase in fertilizer use where appropriate and high-yielding and drought-tolerant seeds, strengthened extension and advisory systems at the kebele (local) level through the use of farmer field schools and pastoral field schools, expansion of access to credit, livelihood diversification, risk transfer mechanism and institutional development that link short-term emergency relief to long-term development pathways. This approach is essential for building resilience to natural hazard and human-induced disasters resulting in food insecurity challenges. Much progress has been made in the last 50 years in the way of managing mainly drought disaster risks. Large-scale prevention and mitigation programmes have been designed, incorporating a focus on vulnerabilities, household asset-building, and public works for environmental rehabilitation and generation of livelihoods. Preparedness has been enhanced by the development of various policies and strategic documents for assessment and intervention, early warning and response systems, and economic, social and physical infrastructure to strengthen the local economy and household livelihoods. An attempt has also been made for humanitarian response to count on an established risk-financing.