Overseas Conflicts: U.S. Agencies Have Coordinated Stabilization Efforts but Need to Document Their Agreement

The United States has a national security interest in promoting stability in conflict-affected countries to prevent or mitigate the consequences of armed conflict, according to the 2017 National Security Strategy. State, USAID, and DOD have reported that a collaborative government approach is an essential part of maximizing the effectiveness of U.S. efforts in conflict-affected areas.

GAO was asked to review U.S. conflict prevention, mitigation, and stabilization efforts abroad. This report (1) describes examples of conflict prevention, mitigation, and stabilization efforts that U.S. agencies and USIP conducted in Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria and their goals in fiscal year 2017 and (2) examines the extent to which U.S. agencies and USIP incorporated key collaboration practices to coordinate their efforts. GAO collected data from the agencies and USIP on their efforts and goals in Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria. GAO selected these countries based on U.S. national security interests, among other criteria. GAO reviewed agency and USIP documents, interviewed officials, and conducted fieldwork in Iraq, Nigeria, and Jordan. GAO assessed coordination against key practices identified by GAO to enhance interagency collaboration.

The Departments of State (State) and Defense (DOD), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP)—an independent, federally funded institute—reported conducting various efforts to address conflict prevention, mitigation, and stabilization for Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria in fiscal year 2017. For example, in Iraq, State supported efforts to remove improvised explosive devices from homes and infrastructure (see figure); USAID contributed to the United Nations to restore essential services; DOD provided immediate medical trauma supplies to the World Health Organization to treat injured civilians; and USIP conducted facilitated dialogs to enable local reconciliation in areas liberated from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

In conducting U.S. conflict prevention, mitigation, and stabilization efforts, State, USAID, DOD, and USIP have addressed aspects of key collaboration practices such as elements of bridging organizational cultures and leadership. However, the agencies have not formally documented their agreement on coordination for U.S. stabilization efforts through formal written guidance and agreements that address key collaboration practices. GAO found the following, for example, with regard to the extent key collaboration practices have been used by these entities.

Bridging organizational cultures: U.S. agencies have established various mechanisms to coordinate their efforts, such as interagency working groups and staff positions focused on coordination. USIP convenes interagency actors, including State, USAID, and DOD through various programs and events.

Defining outcomes and accountability: One or more agencies have established some common outcomes and accountability mechanisms for their stabilization efforts in Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria. Moreover, through an interagency review of U.S. stabilization assistance, State, USAID, and DOD identified a need to develop an outcome-based political strategy outlining end states for U.S. stabilization efforts and strategic analytics to track and measure progress, among other needs.

Written guidance and agreements: Although State, USAID, and DOD have developed a framework for stabilization, they have not documented their agreement on the key collaboration practices identified, such as defining outcomes and accountability and clarifying roles and responsibilities. According to key practices for enhancing interagency collaboration, articulating agreements in formal documents can strengthen collaborative efforts, and reduce the potential for duplication, overlap, and fragmentation.

State, USAID, and DOD should document agreement on their coordination for U.S. stabilization efforts though formal written guidance and agreements addressing key collaboration practices. The agencies concurred with the recommendations.

The U.S. government has invested tens of billions of dollars during the  past decade in efforts to counter overseas threats, including countering  violent extremism in the Middle East and Africa and addressing instability  in fragile and conflict-affected states. Weak governance, political  instability, corruption, and lack of economic opportunity are some of the  factors fueling conflict and violent extremism. The 2017 National Security  Strategy cites violent extremism and weak governance as causes of  instability in various regions of the world that threatens U.S. interests. The  strategy commits to strengthening fragile states in order to prevent threats  against the United States and prevent the reemergence of violent  extremist groups. The strategy also identifies the integration of U.S.  political, economic, and military power and influence as a force that can  deter aggression and help set the conditions for peace and prosperity.  The results the U.S. government seeks to achieve under this strategy  require the coordinated effort of multiple federal agencies and  organizations.

You asked us to review U.S. conflict prevention, mitigation, and  stabilization efforts abroad. This report (1) describes examples of conflict  prevention, mitigation, and stabilization efforts that U.S. agencies and the  U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) conducted in Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria and  their goals in fiscal year 2017 and (2) examines the extent to which U.S.  agencies and USIP incorporated key collaboration practices to coordinate  their efforts.

To address both objectives, we reviewed the conflict prevention,  mitigation, and stabilization efforts of the Departments of State (State)  and Defense (DOD), the U.S. Agency for International Development  (USAID), and USIP. We reviewed relevant program, coordination,  strategy, and planning documents and interviewed State, USAID, DOD,  and USIP officials at headquarters and in the field with regard to specific  efforts in Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria. We conducted work in Washington,  D.C.; Iraq; Nigeria; and Jordan and held teleconferences with officials in  Syria, Turkey, and Kuwait. We focused on Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria based  on several criteria, including U.S. national security interests, countries  with ongoing conflict, countries where all three agencies and USIP initially  reported that they conducted relevant efforts in fiscal year 2017, prior  GAO reporting, and input from agencies and USIP. We cannot generalize  our findings from these three countries to the other countries where these  agencies have conflict prevention, mitigation, and stabilization efforts.

To describe examples of conflict prevention, mitigation, and stabilization  efforts that U.S. agencies and USIP conducted in Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria  and their goals in fiscal year 2017, we collected, synthesized, and  summarized information from State, USAID, DOD, and USIP. We  obtained the definitions of conflict prevention, mitigation, and stabilization  from each entity to the extent each entity used and defined these terms.  To collect the data describing the efforts and their goals from each  agency and USIP, we developed a standardized data collection  instrument. Within the data collection instrument, we asked agencies to  use their own terms, definitions, and categorizations of efforts to report  their efforts by country, specifically, for Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria. We  defined efforts as programs, initiatives, and in some cases, projects. We  reviewed the reported data and supporting documents and obtained  clarification from agency officials where needed.

To examine the extent to which U.S. agencies and USIP incorporated key  collaboration practices to coordinate their conflict prevention, mitigation,  and stabilization efforts, we analyzed information about their coordination  using six of seven key practices for implementing interagency  collaborative mechanisms that we have previously identified and that  were applicable to our review. We assessed coordination of agency and  USIP efforts for conflict prevention, mitigation, and stabilization as a  whole because, as indicated above, the agencies did not always  distinguish their coordination efforts to address conflict using the same  terms or categorization of efforts. Where information was available, we  assessed whether the agencies and USIP had generally incorporated or  not incorporated the six selected key practices to coordinate their efforts  between State, USAID, DOD, and USIP at the headquarters level and for  our selected countries of Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria. To make this  determination, we reviewed agency and USIP documents and conducted  interviews about interagency collaboration activities with officials from  State, USAID, DOD, and USIP. During the course of our work, State,  USAID, and DOD released the 2018 Stabilization Assistance Review: A  Framework for Maximizing the Effectiveness of U.S. Government Efforts  to Stabilize Conflict-Affected Areas (hereafter referred to as the SAR).  We reviewed the contents of that report and interviewed agency officials  associated with it to better understand how the report’s findings may be  related to the key collaboration practices applicable to our review.

Although the National Security Council (NSC) is responsible for  coordination of security-related activities and functions of the executive  departments and agencies, the NSC did not respond to our request for  documents and interviews. We mitigated this limitation by interviewing  other relevant agency officials and reviewing other available  documentation, as described above. We used our analysis of agency and  USIP documents and the results of our interviews with officials to assess  collaboration practices among State, USAID, DOD, and USIP. To aid in  our analysis of coordination from our review of documents and interviews,  we compared descriptions from State, DOD, USAID, and USIP of each of  their relevant efforts in Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria to assess for any  unnecessary duplication. As discussed above, some entities may have  included programs that other entities would not have included because of  differences in how the agencies defined the terms in our scope. As a  result, our analysis only includes the list of programs provided by the  agencies to assess for duplication. Further details about our scope and  methodology can be found in appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2017 to September 2018  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Preventing Conflict and Seeking Stability Abroad Are U.S. Priorities

The National Security Strategy released in December 2017 states that the  U.S. government has a national security interest in addressing conflict  and instability in fragile and failing nations. The strategy commits to  strengthening nations where state weakness may foster threats such as  violent extremism. The strategy also prioritizes efforts that empower  reform-minded governments, people, and civil society in order to address  the drivers of state fragility. In the SAR, a joint review of U.S. stabilization  efforts—diplomacy, assistance, and defense— the Secretaries of State  and Defense and the USAID Administrator stated that increasing stability  and reducing violence in conflict-affected areas are essential to meeting  U.S. national security goals. State and USAID’s joint strategic plans have  identified strategic objectives to counter instability, transnational crime,  and violence that threaten U.S. interests. Notably, the plan for fiscal  years 2018–2022 states that the agencies will make early investments in  preventing conflict, atrocities, and violent extremism before they spread.  The 2018 National Defense Strategy identifies objectives to deter  adversaries from aggression against U.S. interests and prevent terrorists  from directing or supporting external operations against the United States  and its citizens and allies overseas.

Additionally, the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review  released in 2015 and covering 2015 to 2019 outlines the lines of effort  that fall under State and USAID’s commitment to prevent and mitigate  conflict. These lines of effort include countering violent extremism,  strengthening U.S. and international capacity to prevent conflict,  preventing atrocities, establishing frameworks for action in fragile states,  strengthening partner capacity to protect civilians and restore peace, and  eliminating the threat of destabilizing weapons. In the Quadrennial  Defense Review released in 2014 and covering 2014–2018, DOD also  asserts that “the surest way to stop potential attacks is to prevent threats  from developing.” The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review further states  that tackling root drivers of conflict, including building capacity with allied  and partner militaries, and sustaining a global effort to detect, disrupt, and  defeat terrorist plots are part of DOD’s efforts to protect the United States.

U.S. foreign policy strategies and plans identify the Middle East and  Africa as strategically important regions affected by conflict and instability.  In countries such as Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria, the United States is working  to address drivers of conflict and stabilize areas liberated from violent  extremist groups.

Iraq. As we have previously reported, U.S. government efforts for the  global war on terrorism in Iraq began in 2003. Since the removal of  the Ba’ath regime and the construction of a new government, Iraq has  experienced varying levels of political instability, sectarianism, and  conflict. In December 2011, the last units of U.S. Forces–Iraq were  withdrawn from that country. After their departure, the United States  continued to provide assistance such as training and equipment to  Iraq’s military and security forces and funding for programs to  strengthen political institutions and civil society organizations and to  promote economic growth in Iraq. In 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq  and Syria (ISIS) emerged as a major force in Iraq, destabilizing  various areas of the country according to reporting from State and  USAID. As of December 2017, Iraqi forces, with support from the  United States and the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS (Coalition), had  liberated the country’s territory from the control of ISIS, according to  State (see fig. 1). According to a State official, although ISIS no  longer holds Iraqi territory, it remains a terrorist threat.

Syria. Syria’s instability is largely caused by an ongoing civil war that  began with a government crackdown on antigovernment protests in  March 2011. USAID has reported that the conflict has led to  economic collapse, a breakdown in services and governance, and  instability, which violent extremist groups, including ISIS, have sought  to exploit. Millions of Syrians have become refugees or internally  displaced due to this crisis, according to reporting from the United  Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In May 2012, the United  States began providing nonlethal aid to Syrian opposition forces, and  in September 2014, the United States began air strikes against ISIS  components in Syria. In January 2015, DOD created the Syria Train  and Equip program to provide assistance, including training and  equipment, to vetted members of the Syrian opposition and to support  efforts to counter ISIS and liberate territory from ISIS. For  populations that remain in Syria, governance entities and institutions  face challenges in delivering services to their communities, according  to USAID. As of July 2018, DOD has reported that the Syrian  Democratic Forces, with Coalition support, continued efforts to defeat  ISIS in the middle Euphrates River Valley (see fig. 1 above).  Additionally, the civil war between Syrian opposition forces and the  Assad regime was ongoing as of July 2018, according to reporting  from the United Nations.

Nigeria. There are multiple sources of instability across Nigeria. The  terrorist groups Boko Haram and its offshoot ISIS-West Africa have  destabilized areas in northeast Nigeria and the greater Lake Chad  Region leaving over 2 million people displaced and millions more  dependent upon humanitarian assistance as of June 2018, according  to USAID reporting. Also, in the Middle Belt and Northwest of the  country, according to a State official and reporting from Search for  Common Ground, there is rural violence among civilians which  includes criminal attacks, banditry, cattle rustling, and long-standing  intercommunal conflicts between farming and herding communities.  This violence has exacerbated tensions between the populations in  the north and south and among ethnic and religious groups across the  country. Figure 2 shows incidents involving fatalities due to conflict  and violent extremism in Nigeria from January 1, 2012 to September  8, 2018.

Multiple U.S. Entities Conduct Efforts to Address Conflict Abroad

The U.S. government, through federal agencies and federally funded  organizations, supports numerous efforts to address instability and  prevent conflicts abroad.

State and USAID. These are the principal agencies conducting U.S.  foreign policy and international development and humanitarian  assistance. State is the Executive Branch’s lead foreign affairs  agency. State leads U.S. foreign policy through diplomacy, advocacy,  and assistance. USAID is the U.S. government’s lead international  development and humanitarian assistance agency with a key role in  U.S. efforts to ensure stability, prevent conflict, and build citizen- responsive local governance.

DOD. While DOD’s primary mission is to provide combat-ready  military forces to deter war and protect the United States, DOD also  provides support to foreign disaster relief through humanitarian  assistance and stabilization efforts across all phases of conflict and  military operations, and in combat and non-combat environments.

U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP). USIP is an independent national  institute, founded by Congress, to promote international peace and  the resolution of conflicts among the nations and peoples of the world  without recourse to violence. USIP is governed by a bipartisan Board  of Directors, which includes the Secretaries of State and Defense or  their designees, the President or Vice President of the National  Defense University, and 12 others. USIP’s primary funding comes  from congressional appropriation and can be supplemented by funds  from U.S. government partners. USIP staff work abroad and at its  headquarters in Washington, D.C. USIP initiates its own work and  enters into interagency agreements with U.S. agencies such as State,  USAID, and DOD, according to USIP officials. Because USIP is not  an agency within the executive branch, it is not a formal participant in  interagency national security policy processes involving State, USAID,  and DOD, according to State.

U.S. agencies and USIP are engaged in efforts to counter violent  extremism and address conflict in countries affected by instability and  violent conflicts, including Iraq, Syria, and Nigeria. For example, as areas  are liberated from ISIS in Iraq and Syria, the United States is working with  its partners to try to consolidate gains, reduce levels of local instability,  peaceably manage change, and build the capacity of local governance  entities. To improve the effectiveness of these efforts, U.S. agencies have  evaluated lessons from similar efforts in countries such as Afghanistan  and Iraq. The SAR and assessments from the Special Inspector General  for Afghanistan Reconstruction and the Special Inspector General for Iraq  Reconstruction are examples of U.S. government initiatives to identify  lessons learned from past U.S. efforts.

Key Practices That Can Enhance Interagency Collaboration

In prior work, we have identified key collaboration practices that can be  used to assess collaboration at federal agencies (see fig. 3). These  practices can help agencies implement actions to operate across  boundaries, including fostering open lines of communication, and  establish goals based on what the agencies share in common.  Additionally, clarifying roles and responsibilities allows agencies to  determine who will do what, organize their joint and individual efforts, and  facilitate decision making. We have previously found that improving  coordination and collaboration across agencies can potentially help  agencies reduce or better manage fragmentation, overlap, and  duplication.

U.S. Agencies and USIP Conduct Various Efforts to Prevent and Mitigate Violent Conflict and Stabilize Conflict- Affected Areas Abroad

State, USAID, DOD, and USIP reported that they have conducted a  variety of efforts in Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria aimed at preventing and  mitigating violent conflicts and stabilizing areas affected by such  conflicts. In response to our request, each agency and USIP provided  descriptions and goals for their specific program-level or project-level  efforts in Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria (and in neighboring countries for Syria).  To identify these efforts, each agency and USIP used its own terminology  and definitions that were in place in fiscal year 2017.

Efforts reported by State as active in fiscal year 2017. State reported  that it conducted a range of ongoing conflict mitigation and stabilization  efforts to address violent conflict in Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria, in fiscal year  2017. State, in addition to conducting its own efforts, reported that it  sometimes conducted these efforts through grants to implementing  partners or through interagency agreements with USIP.

For Iraq, State reported a list of three individual efforts and four  categories of other efforts as active in fiscal year 2017. These efforts  included, for example, antiterrorism training and equipment for law  enforcement; promotion of democratic governance and protection of  basic human rights; support for religious and ethnic minority groups,  internally displaced persons (IDP), and returnees; and clearance of  explosive hazards. These programs were intended to help defeat ISIS  and transnational terror groups, improve governance and rule of law,  and promote reconciliation and the safe return of displaced Iraqis.  Figure 4 depicts clearance operations for explosive remnants of war  at a water treatment facility in Iraq supported by State.

For Nigeria, State reported 21 efforts as active in fiscal year 2017.

State supported programs to prevent and counter violent extremism  though media programing, human rights training, police and law  enforcement training and equipment, conflict early warning and  response systems, and women’s and youth empowerment. According  to State, these programs were intended to aid in the fight against  Boko Haram and ISIS-West Africa by countering the radicalization  process that leads individuals to violent extremism, protecting civilians  from terrorist groups, and assisting the victims of Boko Haram and  ISIS-West Africa and their host communities. To address crime and  communal conflict in other regions of Nigeria, State reported that it  conducts human rights and investigative training for Nigerian police,  supports efforts to teach conflict resolution skills to youth, convenes  dialogues between farmer and herder stakeholders to develop conflict  resolution mechanisms, and other efforts.

For Syria, State reported nine efforts as active in fiscal year 2017.

State reported efforts that included providing training, equipment, and  stipends to Free Syrian Police and education directorates in  opposition-controlled parts of the country, and building the capacity of  civil society and advocacy organizations, local councils, and civilian  networks. According to State, these programs were intended to  support the opposition and help counter violent extremists, such as  ISIS and al Qaeda in Syria.

Appendix II presents a full list of State’s reported conflict mitigation and  stabilization efforts and their respective goals for Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria,  active in fiscal year 2017.

Efforts reported by USAID as active in fiscal year 2017. USAID  reported that it conducted a range of ongoing conflict mitigation and  stabilization efforts to address violent conflict in Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria, in  fiscal year 2017. USAID reported that it primarily conducted these  efforts through grants and contracts awarded to implementing partners.

For Iraq, USAID reported one effort as active in fiscal year 2017.

USAID, along with other international donors, supplies funding to the  United Nations Development Program’s (UNDP) Funding Facility for  Stabilization. The UNDP, at the request of the Prime Minister of Iraq,  and with support from leading members of the Coalition to Degrade  and Defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), established  the Funding Facility for Stabilization in June 2015 to help rapidly  stabilize newly retaken areas. The aim is to help restore confidence in  the leading role of the Iraqi government in these areas and give  populations a sense of progress and forward momentum. According  to USAID, the Funding Facility for Stabilization supports restoration of  essential services and efforts to kick-start the local economy, enabling  internally displaced persons to return to their homes.

For Nigeria, USAID reported five efforts as active in fiscal year 2017.

USAID reported that it works through its implementing partners to  conduct a variety of ongoing country-specific efforts including working  with youth to develop countering violent extremism (CVE) action  plans, building the capacity of civil society organizations and religious  leaders, and providing education for displaced persons and host  communities. According to USAID, these efforts are intended to  counter violent extremism from Boko Haram and ISIS-West Africa,  reduce conflict between herders and farmers, and support state and  local government ownership for the continued education of internally  displaced children.

For Syria, USAID reported five efforts as active in fiscal year 2017.

USAID reported that it supports a multidonor trust fund to restore  essential services and works through an implementing partner to  enable local councils’ ability to restore essential services. USAID  reported that it also works through implementing partners to support  democratic institutions, livelihoods, and local nongovernmental  organizations. According to USAID, the intent of these programs is to  enable the early recovery of areas liberated from ISIS by  strengthening resistance to extremists, democratic processes, and the  influence of strategic moderate actors. Figure 5 depicts a solar array  installation that provides renewable energy for a drinking water  pumping station in Dar’a Province, Syria, supported by a USAID  essential services program.

Efforts reported by DOD as active in fiscal year 2017. DOD reported  that it conducted stabilization efforts to address violent conflict in Iraq and  Syria, in fiscal year 2017.

In Iraq, DOD reported one effort as active in fiscal year 2017. Medical  Staff of the Combined Joint Forces Land Component Command— Operation Inherent Resolve provided immediate medical trauma  supplies to the World Health Organization to fill a gap in medical  supplies available to treat injured civilians. According to DOD, the  project was coordinated with State and USAID and was funded  through the Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civil Aid  (OHDACA) appropriation. According to DOD, this project was  intended to increase the chance of survival for civilians affected by  military operations, increase civilian confidence in the government and  the humanitarian assistance community, and provide access,  influence, and visibility to DOD.

In Syria, DOD reported eight efforts as active in fiscal year 2017. Civil  Affairs personnel of Special Operations Joint Task Force—Operation  Inherent Resolve provided classroom furniture and school supplies;  cold weather items such as jackets, hats, gloves, socks and blankets;  and in one area food, cooking fuel, construction material, and garbage  removal. The projects were often managed through the local councils.  According to DOD, the projects were coordinated with State and  USAID and were funded through the OHDACA appropriation.  Generally, according to DOD, the projects were intended to assist  vulnerable populations, protect them from ISIL, and support local  councils, while also providing access, visibility, and influence for DOD  forces.

Appendix IV presents a full list of DOD’s reported conflict stabilization  efforts and their respective goals for Iraq and Syria, active in fiscal year  2017.

Efforts reported by USIP as active in fiscal year 2017. Although USIP  generally refers to all of its work as “conflict prevention and resolution,”  USIP officials stated that all of USIP’s efforts fit under the general  umbrella of conflict prevention, mitigation, and stabilization and thus  reported all of USIP’s efforts abroad for Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria (and in  neighboring countries for Syria) that were active in fiscal year 2017.  USIP reported that it conducts its efforts in conjunction with local staff and  implementing partners. According to USIP, some USIP efforts are  supported through interagency agreements with U.S. agencies.

For Iraq, USIP reported eight efforts as active in fiscal year 2017.

USIP reported that it facilitated targeted dialogues among Iraq’s  religious minorities to address security and governance challenges to  reduce the likelihood of recurring violence and enable the return of  IDPs. These dialogues created a monitoring framework to provide  early warnings of potential violence. USIP also reported that it  facilitated dialogues among Iraqis intended to prevent revenge acts of  violence, facilitate the return of the internally displaced, and increase  the resilience of communities to violent extremism from ISIS or others.  Additionally, USIP reported that it provided both governmental and  nongovernmental organizations with training in conflict management  and identified influential religious leaders in specific conflict zones for  future Iraqi-led mediations, dialogues, and peace and reconciliation  efforts. Further, USIP reported that it conducted multiple justice and  security dialogues that included police and government officials and  citizens in areas affected by the aftermath of ISIS to collect and  disseminate lessons learned and best practices.

For Nigeria, USIP reported 14 efforts as active in fiscal year 2017.

USIP reported that it conducted training programs, facilitated  dialogues, established working groups, collected and shared lessons  learned and best practices, and conducted in-country research and  assessments involving civilian populations, nongovernmental  organizations, police, and youth. The intent of these programs,  according to USIP, was to reduce violent conflict and its root causes,  strengthen the country’s recovery from Boko Haram, and prevent the  emergence of other extremist groups in support of long-term stability.  In addition, according to USIP, the institute connected U.S.  policymakers with key Nigerian officials at the subnational levels who  wield significant influence in Nigeria’s federal government system but  with whom the United States has had limited contact. Figure 6 depicts  a USIP symposium in Washington, D.C., funded by State, which  included governors from states across northern Nigeria to foster key  exchanges and critical discussions with leading American and  international experts on the drivers of violent conflict in the region and  how to resolve them.

For Syria, USIP reported three efforts as active in fiscal year 2017.

USIP reported that it held dialogues with interfaith and other key  leaders to strengthen civil society’s engagement and coordinating role  with civic, religious, and tribal leaders on conflict management and  prevention. For one effort, according to USIP, it has three ongoing  grants related to the Syria conflict in neighboring countries that focus  on reducing tensions associated with the absorption of Syrian  refugees.

Appendix V presents a full list of USIP’s reported efforts and their  respective goals for Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria, active in fiscal year 2017.

U.S. Agencies and USIP Have Incorporated Aspects of Key Collaboration Practices for Their Conflict Prevention, Mitigation, and Stabilization Efforts but Have Not Documented Their Agreement

State, USAID, DOD, and, where appropriate, USIP have incorporated  aspects of key collaboration practices to coordinate their conflict  prevention, mitigation, and stabilization efforts for Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria.  However, the agencies have not documented their agreement on  coordination for stabilization efforts in conflict-affected areas through  formal written guidance and agreements that address key collaboration  practices. The agencies have individually and jointly established some  common outcomes for stabilization efforts in Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria.  Additionally, State, USAID, DOD, and USIP have generally taken steps to  bridge their organizational cultures; identify sources of leadership that  facilitate coordination; establish roles and responsibilities; and include  relevant participants for their conflict prevention, mitigation, and  stabilization efforts in these countries. During the course of our review,  State, USAID, and DOD released the SAR, which identified areas where  U.S. government coordination for stabilization efforts in conflict-affected  areas could be improved; however, the agencies have not documented  their agreement as to how they will coordinate these efforts in formal  written guidance and agreements that address key collaboration  practices. Because multiple federal entities are engaged in U.S. conflict  prevention, mitigation, and stabilization efforts in Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria,  there is some inherent fragmentation in their efforts as well as the  potential for overlap and duplication. According to key practices for  enhancing interagency collaboration, articulating interagency agreement  on collaborative efforts in formal documents, can strengthen those  collaborative efforts and could reduce the potential for unnecessary  fragmentation, overlap, and duplication.

We previously found that establishing common outcomes can help  agencies shape and define the purpose of their collaborative efforts.  According to a senior State official, the classified country strategies  maintained by the National Security Council (NSC) may contain common  outcomes for some U.S. conflict prevention, mitigation, and stabilization  efforts. However, the NSC did not respond to our requests for information  regarding NSC-level country strategies for Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria.

In the absence of information from the NSC, we reviewed information  provided by the agencies as well as other government documents and  found that outcomes for U.S. stabilization efforts in Iraq, Nigeria, and  Syria have generally been established by one or more of the agencies.  For example, for its stabilization efforts for Iraq, USAID reported that its  outcome metric is the return of internally displaced populations to their  communities. USAID also reported that it monitors progress toward this  outcome using, in part, quarterly reporting from the United Nations  Development Program (UNDP), the implementer for the primary  mechanism through which the United States and other donor partners  fund stabilization efforts in Iraq.

Similarly, in the case of Nigeria, the U.S. government has established  common outcomes and accountability mechanisms related to U.S. efforts  to counter Boko Haram and ISIS-West Africa, which includes stabilization  assistance. For example, the interagency, NSC-approved U.S. Strategy  for Countering Boko Haram/ISIS-West Africa (March 2017), states that  the United States seeks long-term end states under which Lake Chad  Basin countries, in tandem with local authorities and international  partners, are able to address specific regional and community-level  conditions that are drivers of conflict and that make communities  vulnerable to violent extremist groups. The National Counterterrorism  Center facilitates an annual assessment of this strategy, and State,  USAID, and DOD review their progress toward achieving objectives in  this strategy during weekly meetings, according to State officials.

For Syria, in January 2018, then-Secretary of State Tillerson identified the  creation of conditions for the safe and voluntary return of Syrian refugees  and internally displaced persons as one of several end states for Syria.  However, agency officials reported different views regarding clarity about  end states and goals for U.S. efforts in Syria. While some U.S. officials  we interviewed could point to sources for U.S. strategy in Syria, other  U.S. officials told us that the United States’ policy and goals for Syria  were unclear. State and DOD officials indicated that the U.S. goals for  Syria change in response to conditions where U.S. agencies and their  partners operate. A USAID official told us that events on the ground often  overtake U.S. efforts, and the complicated regional dynamics also affect  U.S. policy goals.

Moreover, the U.S. government has also developed Integrated Country  Strategies for Iraq and Nigeria. The Integrated Country Strategies  developed by U.S. embassies and missions may contain outcomes  related to, but not necessarily specific to, U.S. conflict prevention,  mitigation, and stabilization efforts abroad, according to a senior State  official. According to State guidance, Integrated Country Strategies  should articulate a common set of U.S. government goals and objectives  in a country and may also outline performance indicators to measure  progress toward each mission objective. The guidance further states that  the development of these strategies should include coordination and  collaboration among State, USAID, and other U.S. government agencies  at the mission.

Finally, at a global-level, State, USAID, and DOD have identified a need  to improve the outcomes and accountability of U.S. stabilization efforts.  Specifically, the 2018 SAR recommended that State, USAID, and DOD  work with relevant U.S. embassy, State regional bureaus, DOD  combatant commands, and other stakeholders to develop an outcome- based political strategy for stabilization in countries where stabilization is  a high priority. The SAR notes the importance of developing an  outcome-based political strategy that outlines core assumptions and  achievable end states and that guides all lines of effort to ensure unity of  purpose within the U.S. government. The SAR also identified a need to  establish indicators to measure changes in the conflict environment and  track them consistently over time and stated that doing so could facilitate  more rigorous reviews by policy makers to determine whether  adjustments are needed in U.S. government political strategy and  objectives.

State and USIP officials reported that due to USIP’s status as an  independent, federally funded institute that operates outside of executive  branch mechanisms, USIP is not a direct participant in processes to  establish common outcomes and accountability mechanisms for U.S.  government conflict prevention, mitigation, and stabilization efforts.

We previously found that it is important for agencies to establish ways to  operate across agency boundaries. According to State, USAID, and DOD  officials, they have taken steps to bridge their different organizational  cultures with regard to their conflict prevention, mitigation, and  stabilization efforts for Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria. Specifically, officials said  that they have developed a variety of ways to jointly operate across  agency boundaries, such as through interagency groups and special  coordination positions. USIP does not participate in such interagency  mechanisms; however, it reported that it communicates and coordinates  with State, USAID, and DOD through other means, such as through  bilateral communications and interagency tabletop exercises.

State, USAID, and DOD have established various interagency groups to  coordinate their efforts for Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria. According to State,  USAID, and DOD officials, interagency working groups help agencies to  reduce the potential for overlap and duplication of effort. Examples of  interagency groups, by country, are described below.

Iraq: A “Liberated Areas Working Group” serves as a clearinghouse  and information exchange for both mission-level and headquarters- based counterparts to coordinate agencies’ post-ISIS stabilization  efforts for Iraq. As another example, the Ambassador or Deputy Chief  of Mission at Embassy Baghdad leads a stabilization and  humanitarian assistance working group that meets biweekly and  includes participation from State, USAID, and DOD.

Nigeria: In 2015, State established an interagency group, headed by a  retired U.S. Ambassador, that aims to ensure the coordination of U.S.  government efforts to counter Boko Haram. Additionally, the U.S.  mission in Nigeria has working groups that examine various issues,  such as U.S. efforts to mitigate conflict in the country and address  conflict issues in northeast Nigeria.

Syria: Given that the U.S. agencies do not have an embassy-based  presence in Syria, State, USAID, and DOD coordinate their  stabilization efforts for Syria through three interagency platforms: the  Southern Syria Assistance Platform (SSAP), located in Jordan; the  Syria Transition Assistance Response Team (START), located in  Turkey; and, according to a State official, START-Forward in  northeastern Syria, which reports to START. START and SSAP  personnel noted that the colocation of State and USAID personnel  through these platforms has facilitated coordination between the two  agencies, including information sharing. Further, a State Office of  Inspector General inspection of the U.S. Embassy Ankara, Turkey,  described START as a “cohesive unit” that blends State and USAID  officials, and as a unique and “innovative model for diplomacy in  dangerous environments.” In addition, for northeast Syria, START  established four stabilization-related working groups that meet on a  regular basis and include civilian and military representation.

USIP does not participate in these interagency working groups. Rather,  USIP reported that it coordinates on a bilateral, multilateral, and as- needed basis with State, USAID, and DOD headquarters personnel as  well as with embassy personnel in the countries where USIP conducts  work. USIP also reported that it convenes interagency officials through  various programs and events, such as tabletop exercises and  conferences. For example, in 2016, USIP convened State, USAID, and  DOD, along with various nongovernmental and international  organizations, to design and implement a tabletop exercise on countering  violent extremism in the Lake Chad Basin.

Interagency Collaboration Staff Positions

State, USAID, and DOD officials reported that they also bridge their  organizational cultures through staff positions that are aimed at  enhancing interagency collaboration, such as liaison positions and  officials who are embedded in other organizations. For example, SSAP  and START each have civil-military liaisons, and agency officials said that  these positions have helped to facilitate information sharing among State,  USAID, and DOD. As another example, DOD officials reported that  embedded State and USAID officials at U.S. Africa Command have  helped to inform DOD’s perspective on stabilization in Nigeria.

USIP reported that to help bridge organizational cultures and enhance  cooperation with its agency partners, the institute operates an annual  interagency fellows program. Through the program, USIP hosts one  fellow each from State and USAID, and two military officers—one Marine  lieutenant colonel and one Army lieutenant colonel—to conduct research  and work alongside USIP program staff, according to USIP.

Interagency Definitions of Conflict Prevention, Mitigation, and Stabilization

In 2018, State, USAID, and DOD established a common definition of  “stabilization.” The three agencies have not established common  definitions of the terms “conflict prevention” and “conflict mitigation.” In  the SAR, State, USAID, and DOD defined “stabilization” as “a political  endeavor involving an integrated civilian-military process to create  conditions where locally legitimate authorities and systems can peaceably  manage conflict and prevent a resurgence of violence. Transitional in  nature, stabilization may include efforts to establish civil security, provide  access to dispute resolution, and deliver targeted basic services, and  establish a foundation for the return of displaced people and longer term  development.” According to USAID’s Administrator, the SAR built on  lessons learned from Iraq and Syria, among other locations. The SAR  states that, despite the U.S. government’s significant international  experience in conducting stabilization efforts over recent decades, the  U.S. government’s concept of stabilization was previously ill-defined and  poorly institutionalized across government structures. The SAR also  notes that the lack of standardization in defining and conducting  stabilization led to repeated mistakes, inefficient spending, and poor  accountability for results. During the course of our review, agency and  USIP officials expressed varying views related to the feasibility of  articulating a common definition for “conflict prevention” and “conflict  mitigation.” For example, State and USAID officials noted that all of their  agencies’ foreign assistance and diplomatic efforts could be considered  conflict prevention. USAID also noted that defining the issues or problem  sets associated with “conflict prevention” or “conflict mitigation” will  depend, in part, on the context in which the relevant government agency  engages on those issues. In addition, State’s Bureau of Conflict and  Stabilization Operations opined that conflict management and mitigation  is an evolving field of practice as well as an area that can encompass a  very broad and multifaceted range of efforts, including diplomacy, foreign  assistance, sanctions, and mobilization of international actions. Agency  and USIP officials did not identify a negative effect associated with the  lack of common definitions of the terms “conflict prevention” and “conflict  mitigation.”

Nonetheless, according to State and DOD officials, the agencies have  started discussing the merits and feasibility of defining “conflict  prevention.” For example, in response to our inquiry during a joint  meeting of the three agencies with us in March 2018 to discuss the SAR,  a senior State official noted that the three agencies were collectively  exploring the feasibility of developing a standardized definition and  harmonized approach for conflict prevention. In its technical comments to  our draft report, State indicated that the agencies have begun to  collaborate on the development of a definition for “conflict prevention.” In  addition, as part of its planned structural reorganization of its  headquarters bureaus, USAID is proposing the establishment of a new  Bureau for Conflict Prevention and Stabilization.

We previously found that it is important for agencies to identify sources of  leadership for the collaborative effort. Agency and USIP officials identified  sources of leadership, such as various NSC committees and special  leadership positions, that facilitate coordination of the U.S. government’s  conflict prevention, mitigation, and stabilization efforts for Iraq, Nigeria,  and Syria. State and DOD officials reported that the NSC plays a  leadership role in providing strategic direction and policy guidance on  issues related to conflict prevention, mitigation, and stabilization. State  and DOD officials also said that the NSC convenes interagency actors,  including State, USAID, and DOD, to discuss high-level issues in these  areas. State reported that the NSC Fragile States and Stabilization  Policy Coordination Committee is the broadest conflict-related  coordination group. State also reported that a significant degree of  NSC-level coordination on conflict-related issues occurs through country- specific working groups, including the groups for Iraq, Syria, and Nigeria.  The NSC-level Atrocities Prevention Board is another interagency  mechanism that covers conflict-related issues. It has the primary purpose  of coordinating a whole-of-government approach to prevent mass  atrocities and genocide. While USIP is not a member of NSC-level  groups, USIP reported that it engages with the NSC regarding national  security issues on a bilateral basis.

Agency officials also told us that various special diplomatic positions,  such as special envoys and designated coordinators, are a source of  leadership for the coordination of U.S. efforts to address conflict abroad.  State and USAID officials cited the role of the Special Presidential Envoy  for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS, who reports to the Secretary of  State, as a source of leadership for U.S. stabilization efforts for Iraq and  Syria. State officials also cited the former U.S. Special Envoy for Syria  position as a source of leadership for U.S. efforts for Syria.

In 2015, the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs at the time  appointed a retired Ambassador as Senior Coordinator on Boko Haram  for the Lake Chad Basin region (which includes Nigeria), according to a  State official. The Senior Coordinator on Boko Haram chairs a weekly  interagency working group that includes a wide array of U.S. agency  offices, including State, USAID, and DOD elements at both the  headquarters and field-levels. According to DOD and State officials, the  weekly meetings led by the Senior Coordinator on Boko Haram have  helped U.S. agencies deconflict their efforts. According to a USIP report,  the Senior Coordinator position has improved the U.S. government’s  ability to align its efforts at both senior and working levels and has  supported broad, interagency information sharing and coordination in the  development of a common U.S. strategy to defeat Boko Haram.

Agency officials also cited field-level leadership as helpful in coordinating  U.S. government efforts for Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria. For example, for  Nigeria, a USAID official told us that the Ambassador and the Deputy  Chief of Mission at the U.S. embassy have enhanced and led interagency  coordination. The Ambassador has provided input to help deconflict U.S.  programming related to conflict mitigation and stabilization, according to  this USAID official. For Syria, agency officials identified the leadership of  START as helpful in coordinating U.S. stabilization efforts for Syria.  Agency officials provided various views regarding the sufficiency of  leadership mechanisms currently in place for coordinating U.S.  stabilization efforts for Syria. While U.S. field-level efforts for Iraq and  Nigeria are led by Ambassadors, the U.S. government’s ambassadorial  position for Syria has been vacant since 2014. Some officials told us  there was a lack of centralized leadership and decision-making authority  for Syria, while others said that the current leadership structures were  generally sufficient for the coordination of U.S. government efforts for  Syria.

We previously found that it is important for agencies to define and agree  on their respective roles and responsibilities for a collaborative effort. We  found that agencies’ roles and responsibilities for conducting stabilization  efforts for Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria were generally clear, and through the  SAR, agencies have taken steps to clarify their stabilization roles and  responsibilities at a global level. USAID officials reported that the agency  has largely funded and overseen stabilization efforts for Iraq through the  UNDP and local implementers. In Syria, State and USAID reported that  they formed a combined team for implementing stabilization assistance,  with support and equipment supplied by the U.S. military. For Nigeria,  according to DOD and USAID officials, roles and responsibilities for  agencies, including lead and supporting roles, have been defined for the  U.S. counter Boko Haram and ISIS-West Africa effort.

Through the 2018 SAR, State, USAID, and DOD recommended the  clarification of their respective roles and responsibilities for conducting  U.S. stabilization efforts abroad. The SAR recommended State as the  overall lead federal agency for U.S. stabilization efforts, USAID as the  lead implementing agency for nonsecurity U.S. stabilization assistance,  and DOD as a supporting federal agency that provides security and  reinforces civilian efforts where appropriate. The SAR noted that clear  lines of authority between U.S. agencies would improve effectiveness,  reduce duplication and confusion, enable greater accountability, and fully  operationalize a whole-of-government approach. In June 2018, the  Secretaries of State and Defense and the USAID Administrator approved  the SAR, including its recommendations regarding proposed U.S. agency  roles and responsibilities for U.S. stabilization efforts.

In addition to the SAR, a 2018 DOD-sponsored study also recommended  that DOD play a primarily supporting role in non-military, U.S. stabilization  efforts. According to a DOD official, DOD is in the process of updating  its stabilization policy to reflect DOD’s supporting role in U.S. government  stabilization efforts, in accordance with the SAR. As indicated above, U.S.  agencies do not distinguish their coordination of prevention and mitigation  efforts as discrete areas of work; as a result, we were unable to assess  specific roles and responsibilities among U.S. agencies for these areas.

According to USIP, it aims to complement U.S. executive branch efforts  and partner with U.S. agencies to prevent and resolve conflict in areas of  interest to U.S. security. USIP reported that it convenes U.S. government  and non-U.S. government entities on a variety of high-level policy issues;  conducts its own research and programs; and partners with U.S.  agencies to conduct research and programs abroad. State, DOD, and  USAID officials said that USIP plays a valuable, unique, and helpful role  given its status as an independent organization, its specialized expertise,  its ability to convene interagency actors in a non-official setting, and its  ability to build local relationships through a continuous, field-based  presence in certain countries. For example, State officials and  nongovernmental partners of USIP in Nigeria told us that USIP played a  beneficial role in convening national and local Nigerian leaders for peace  and reconciliation dialogues.

We previously found that it is important to ensure that the relevant  participants have been included in the collaborative effort. U.S.  government entities conducting conflict prevention, mitigation, and  stabilization efforts abroad have demonstrated the key collaboration  practice of ensuring the inclusion of all relevant participants. State,  USAID, DOD, and other agency officials identified State, USAID, and  DOD as the primary U.S. government agencies that participate in  mechanisms to coordinate U.S. conflict prevention, mitigation, and  stabilization efforts abroad. Agency officials conducting such efforts for  Iraq, Syria, and Nigeria reported that the relevant participants—State,  USAID, and DOD—are involved in the coordination of such efforts.

USIP also reported that it participates in U.S. conflict prevention,  mitigation, and stabilization efforts through a variety of means. At the  headquarters-level, USIP officials told us that they conduct both regular  and as-needed consultations and discussions with senior agency officials  at the NSC, State, USAID, DOD, and other agencies. USIP and State  officials also indicated that they coordinate their Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria  programs that are funded by State through interagency agreements.  USIP officials said that it is in communication with the embassies where  USIP has a USIP office or ground presence. For Iraq, State and USIP  officials located in-country said that they contact one another as needed.  According to USIP, in March 2018, it reestablished an American country  manager position in Baghdad, Iraq, whose responsibilities include regular  communication and coordination with relevant U.S. government officials.  For Nigeria, USAID and USIP officials said that USIP participates in a  peace and security network that brings together international  nongovernmental organizations and governmental actors—including  USAID—to share information on peace and security efforts being  conducted in Nigeria.

We previously found that agencies that articulate their agreements in  formal documents can strengthen their commitment to working  collaboratively. We found that U.S. agencies and USIP have documented  some aspects of how they coordinate their conflict prevention, mitigation,  and stabilization efforts in Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria. However, State,  USAID, and DOD have not documented their agreement from the SAR on  how they will coordinate their global stabilization efforts in conflict-affected  areas, such as their agreements on common outcomes and accountability  and their roles and responsibilities for conducting U.S. stabilization  efforts.

Specifically, we found that U.S. agencies and USIP have documented  some aspects of how they coordinate their conflict prevention, mitigation,  and stabilization efforts in Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria. Notably, USIP  provided us with examples of its written agreements with U.S. agencies  for which USIP implements conflict prevention and mitigation  programming with agency funding. USIP has written agreements with  USAID and various State bureaus for programs implemented in Iraq,  Nigeria, and Syria. According to USIP officials in Nigeria, USIP and State  coordinated the planning and implementation of their efforts during the  course of these interagency agreements.

In June 2018, State publically announced that the Secretaries of State  and Defense and the USAID Administrator approved the SAR’s  recommendations regarding U.S. stabilization efforts, such as the SAR’s  recommendations to establish outcomes and accountability mechanisms  and to formally define agencies’ stabilization roles and responsibilities.  According to the SAR, while the principles for effective stabilization, such  as clarified and formally defined roles and responsibilities, have been  widely studied, they have not been systematically applied and  institutionalized. According to key practices for enhancing interagency  collaboration, articulating agreements in formal documents can  strengthen collaborative efforts, and reduce the potential for  fragmentation, overlap, and duplication. However, the SAR remains a  “framework” that, according to State, has yet to be translated into agency  policy and practice, and State, USAID, and DOD have not yet developed  a plan to implement the SAR recommendations.

State, USAID, and DOD officials acknowledged the importance of  codifying their agreement on the collaboration elements raised in the SAR  but said that they had not yet decided on a specific document or  documents for doing so. For example, officials discussed the idea of  establishing an interagency memorandum among the three agencies to  codify their specific roles and responsibilities for conducting stabilization  efforts, but they indicated that next steps will depend on various factors,  such as decisions with regard to State’s and USAID’s ongoing  organizational redesign processes. Agency officials also indicated that they are considering implementing the SAR’s recommendations through  issuing written, internal guidance within each agency. We have previously  found that written guidance, such as an implementation plan or  memorandum of agreements, can help agencies during times of transition  when leadership changes and there is a need for continuity. By formally  documenting agreements according to key leading practices, the  agencies will be better positioned to strengthen their collaborative efforts,  and reduce any potential for fragmentation, overlap, and duplication.

In the National Security Strategy issued in December 2017, the United  States emphasized the need to integrate all instruments of the United  States’ national power in order to deter conflict and secure peace. State,  USAID, DOD, and USIP work individually and jointly to prevent and  mitigate conflict and stabilize conflict-affected areas. Although the three  agencies have incorporated aspects of key practices in the coordination  of their conflict prevention, mitigation, and stabilization efforts in Iraq,  Nigeria, and Syria, they have not fully demonstrated the key practice of  documenting agreements in written guidance. By articulating their  agreement in formal documents, such as a memorandum of agreement or  an implementation plan, these agencies can strengthen their coordination  of U.S. stabilization efforts.

We are making a total of three recommendations, one each to State,  USAID, and DOD. Specifically:

The Secretary of State, in collaboration with the Administrator of the  U.S. Agency for International Development and the Secretary of  Defense, should document their agreement on coordination for U.S.  stabilization efforts through formal written guidance and agreements  that address key collaboration practices such as defining outcomes  and accountability and clarifying roles and responsibilities for U.S.  stabilization efforts. (Recommendation 1)

The Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development,  in collaboration with the Secretaries of Defense and State, should  document their agreement on coordination for U.S. stabilization efforts  through formal written guidance and agreements that address key  collaboration practices such as defining outcomes and clarifying roles  and responsibilities for U.S. stabilization efforts. (Recommendation 2)

The Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with the Administrator of  the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Secretary of  State, should document their agreement on coordination for U.S.  stabilization efforts through formal written guidance and agreements  that address key collaboration practices such as defining outcomes  and accountability and clarifying roles and responsibilities for U.S.  stabilization efforts. (Recommendation 3)

We provided a draft of this report to State, USAID, and DOD for  comment. State, USAID, and DOD concurred with the recommendations  and provided comments, which are reproduced in appendixes VI through  VIII, respectively. State, USAID, and DOD also provided technical  comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

We also provided a draft of this report to USIP for comment. USIP’s  comments are reproduced in appendix IX. USIP also provided technical  comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of State, the Administrator of USAID, the  Secretary of Defense, the President of USIP, and other interested parties.  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-7114 or FarbJ@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last   page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix X.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report (1) describes examples of conflict prevention, mitigation, and  stabilization efforts that U.S. agencies and the U.S. Institute of Peace  (USIP) conducted in Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria and their goals in fiscal year  2017 and (2) examines the extent to which U.S. agencies and USIP  incorporated key collaboration practices to coordinate their efforts.

To address both objectives, we reviewed the conflict prevention,  mitigation, and stabilization efforts of the Departments of State (State)  and Defense (DOD), the U.S. Agency for International Development  (USAID), and USIP. We reviewed program, coordination, strategy, and  planning documentation and interviewed State, USAID, DOD, and USIP  officials at headquarters and in the field with regard to specific efforts in  Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria. We conducted work in Washington, D.C.; Iraq;  Nigeria; and Jordan and held teleconferences with officials in Syria,  Turkey, and Kuwait. At the posts, we interviewed U.S. embassy  leadership, agency program officers, and implementing partners, where  available. We focused on Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria based on several  criteria, including U.S. national security interests, countries with ongoing  conflict, countries where all three agencies and USIP initially reported that  they conducted relevant efforts in fiscal year 2017, prior GAO reporting,  and input from agencies and USIP. We cannot generalize our findings  from these three countries to the other countries where these agencies  have conflict prevention, mitigation, and stabilization efforts.

Specifically, we interviewed officials at the following entities.

State officials in the Bureau of African Affairs; Bureau of Conflict and  Stabilization Operations; Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and  Labor; Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement;  Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs; Bureau of Political-Military Affairs;  Bureau of Public Affairs; Office of the Inspector General; Office of the  Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS (the  Islamic State of Iraq and Syria); and the Office of U.S. Foreign  Assistance Resources;

USAID officials in the Bureau for Africa; Bureau for Democracy,  Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance; and Bureau for the Middle  East;

DOD officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Office of the  Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Africa Command, and U.S. Central  Command; and

USIP officials in the Middle East and Africa Center and the Policy,  Learning, and Strategy Center.

To describe examples of conflict prevention, mitigation, and stabilization  efforts that U.S. agencies and USIP conducted in Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria  and their goals in fiscal year 2017, we collected, synthesized, and  summarized information from State, USAID, DOD, and USIP.

First, we obtained the definitions of conflict prevention, mitigation, and  stabilization from each entity to the extent each entity used and defined  these terms. Based on our discussions with each agency and USIP, we  determined that we could not use one common definition, as each agency  and USIP defined these terms based on its programs and the context of  its operations; thus, we would have had to use overlapping terms and  definitions to capture their efforts for fiscal year 2017.

State and USAID used the term “conflict mitigation and stabilization”  and defined their efforts as foreign assistance programs that reduce  the threat or impact of violent conflict and promote the peaceful  resolution of differences, mitigate violence if it has already broken out,  establish a framework for peace and reconciliation, and provide for  the transition from conflict to post-conflict environments.

DOD used the term “stabilization” and defined it as “an integrated  civilian and military process applied in designated fragile and conflict  affected areas outside the United States to establish civil security,  address drivers of instability, and create conditions for sustainable  stability—a condition characterized by local political systems that can  peaceably manage conflict and change; effective and accountable  institutions that can provide essential services; and societies that  respect fundamental human rights and the rule of law.”

USIP generally referred to its work as conflict prevention and  resolution, which may include conflict prevention, mitigation, and  stabilization efforts. USIP did not have current definitions for these  terms in fiscal year 2017. USIP officials stated that all of USIP’s efforts  would fit under the general umbrella of conflict prevention, mitigation,  and stabilization and reported all of USIP’s efforts abroad for Iraq,  Nigeria, and Syria (and in neighboring countries for Syria) that were  active in fiscal year 2017.

Second, to collect the data describing the efforts and their goals from  each agency and USIP, we developed a standardized data collection  instrument. We defined “efforts” as any program, initiative, or other similar  level of engagement and also accepted projects and activities when  reported. We had each agency and USIP use its own terms, definitions,  and categorizations of efforts in this instrument. Based on our discussions  with the agencies and USIP, we determined that this would still allow us  to collect a comprehensive set of programs from each entity and to learn  about their key efforts in this domain. However, we recognize that some  entities might have included programs that other entities would not have  included, even though both entities’ programs may have had many  similarities, because of the entities’ differing definitions and terms. To  ensure that our report could be made publically available, we also  accepted reported categories of programs if listing each program  separately would have meant including controlled unclassified information  (sensitive but unclassified) .

Within the data collection instrument, we asked agencies to report efforts  by country, specifically, for Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria. To corroborate entries  in the instrument, we requested that the agencies and USIP also provide  one document or website link supporting each entry. Not all agencies fully  complied with this request. In some cases, we conducted web searches  for any publicly available supporting information.

Third, we reviewed the reported data and supporting documents and  obtained clarification from agency officials where needed. We  synthesized and summarized information for each effort in this report’s  appendixes and, at a higher level, in the body of the report. We requested  technical comments on our summarized information from the agencies  and USIP, and incorporated their suggestions as appropriate. We did not  independently verify whether the reported lists of conflict prevention,  mitigation, and stabilization efforts included all such efforts in Iraq,  Nigeria, and Syria (and in neighboring countries for Syria).

To examine the extent to which U.S. agencies and USIP incorporated key  collaboration practices to coordinate their conflict prevention, mitigation,  and stabilization efforts, we analyzed information about State, USAID,  DOD, and USIP’s coordination using six of the seven key practices for  implementing interagency collaborative mechanisms that we have  previously identified and that were applicable to our review. We  assessed coordination of agency and USIP efforts for conflict prevention,  mitigation, and stabilization as a whole because, as indicated above, the  agencies did not always distinguish their coordination efforts to address  conflict using the same terms or categorization of efforts. Where  information was available, we assessed whether the agencies and USIP  had generally incorporated or not incorporated the six selected key  practices to coordinate their efforts between State, USAID, DOD, and  USIP at the headquarters level and for our selected countries of Iraq,  Nigeria, and Syria. To make this determination, we examined agency and  USIP documents and conducted interviews about interagency  collaboration activities with officials from State, USAID, DOD, and USIP.  We reviewed agency reports; jointly developed and independently  developed strategies; interagency agreements; monitoring reports; and  public statements by senior U.S. government officials, among other  documents. We also reviewed agency and third-party reports that  assessed interagency collaboration, among other issues, though it was  beyond the scope of this review to assess the methodology or underlying  data in these reports. During the course of our work, State, USAID, and  DOD released the 2018 Stabilization Assistance Review: A Framework  for Maximizing the Effectiveness of U.S. Government Efforts to Stabilize  Conflict-Affected Areas. This report assessed U.S. stabilization  assistance globally in conflict-affected areas. We reviewed the contents of  the report and interviewed agency officials associated with this review to  better understand their findings as may be related to the key collaboration  practices applicable to our review.

Although the National Security Council (NSC) is responsible for  coordination of security-related activities and functions of the executive  departments and agencies, the NSC did not respond to our request for  documents and interviews. We mitigated this limitation by interviewing  officials at the three agencies and reviewing other available  documentation including the U.S. Strategy for Countering Boko  Haram/ISIS-West Africa and the U.S. Strategy to Counter the Islamic  State of Iraq and the Levant. During our visit to the U.S. embassy in  Nigeria, we observed meetings for two interagency working groups. We  also interviewed implementing partners for U.S. government and USIP  efforts in Iraq, Jordan, and Nigeria. We used our analysis of agency and  USIP documents and the results of our interviews with officials to assess  collaboration practices among State, USAID, DOD, and USIP. To aid in  our analysis of coordination from our review of documents and interviews,  we used the information obtained under the first objective and compared  State, DOD, USAID, and USIP descriptions of each of their efforts in Iraq,  Nigeria, and Syria to assess for any unnecessary duplication. As  discussed above, some entities may have included efforts that other  entities would not have included based on their definitions for the terms in  our scope. As a result, our analysis only includes the list of programs  provided by the agencies to assess for duplication.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2017 to September 2018  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: State Reported Conflict Mitigation and Stabilization Efforts for Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria, Fiscal Year 2017

Conflict mitigation and stabilization effort IRAQ

The Department of State’s (State) ATA Program is managed by the Bureau of  Counterterrorism and implemented by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. The ATA  program trains and equips selected Iraqi law enforcement agencies to counter  improvised explosive devices, respond to critical incidents, and conduct terrorism  related investigations. ATA funds support training courses, consultations, associated  equipment deliveries, and training support costs in Iraq and other selected third-country  training locations. ATA provides the antiterrorism training and equipment to help Iraqi  law enforcement agencies deal effectively with security challenges within their borders,  to defend against threats to national and regional stability, and to deter terrorist  operations across borders and regions. ATA assists efforts to defeat the Islamic State  of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and counter transnational terror groups and organizations by  curtailing the transit of foreign terrorist fighters throughout the country and mitigating the  effects of terrorist incidents.

State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) conducts Good  Governance Programs in Iraq through grants to implementing partners. These  programs aim to advance the equitable representation of religious and ethnic minority  groups and internally displaced persons (IDP), women, and other populations  marginalized in governance structures. The programs are also intended to promote  equitable access to resources and services and support reform efforts on key issues of  human rights and democratic governance. Programming engages civil society to  develop and implement key democratic reform processes and institutions in both the  central government and the Kurdistan Regional Government. The goals of Good  Governance Programs in Iraq are to strengthen citizen-responsive governance,  security, and rule of law to prevent instability, violence, or other crises through  collaboration with Iraqi partner institutions on activities that combat corruption and  strengthen governance.

State’s DRL conducts Political Competition and Consensus Building Programs in Iraq  through grants to implementing partners. Capitalizing on political openings created  through national and provincial elections, these programs intend to work with newly  elected officials and parties to strengthen their ability to equitably represent the needs  of their constituents, with a particular focus on outreach to minorities and marginalized  populations. One publicly competed grant will support avenues for citizens to negotiate  disputes and debate policy priorities through peaceful, democratic methods, and will  work to ease tensions between the central government and the Kurdistan Regional  Government. The overall goal of these programs is to build the capacity of the  government of Iraq to take the lead in strengthening citizen-responsive governance,  security, and rule of law to prevent further instability and violence. DRL programing  intends to help the government of Iraq become more inclusive, transparent, and  responsive with increased participation by women, youth, and religious and ethnic  minorities.

Conflict mitigation and stabilization effort DRL Rule of Law Programs

State’s description of effort and its goals   State’s DRL conducts Rule of Law Programs in Iraq through grants to implementing  partners. These programs are intended to promote reconciliation initiatives, including  efforts to counter violent extremism; reintegrate returning IDPs, survivors, and their  families; rehabilitate men and boys affected by the conflict; reconstitute and protect  minority communities—in support of the global religious minorities earmark; and support  civil society to promote accountability and transparency. More specifically, these efforts  aim to (1) strengthen civil society’s ability to monitor the status of detainees and  advocate for fair treatment, anti-torture, and due process; promote protection of basic  human rights and democratic principles; and provide psychosocial support for trauma  survivors; (2) increase accountability for human rights violations, including those  associated with the current crisis, with a particular focus on the most vulnerable Iraqis,  including religious and ethnic minorities, and women and children; and (3) support  efforts to advocate for the rights and protections of women, girls, IDPs, victims of war— including Marla Ruzicka Iraqi War Victims Fund beneficiaries—and other marginalized  groups.

State’s DRL conducts Social and Economic Services and Protections for Vulnerable  Populations Programs in Iraq through grants to implementing partners. Programs may  include livelihood and vocational training; small and medium enterprise creation and  support; psychosocial and legal aid services; compensation for war victims/reparations;  and other efforts to support the rehabilitation of victims of conflict that are not reached  through current assistance. These programs aim to address the post-conflict  vulnerabilities of disproportionately affected marginalized populations that are often  targeted by transnational terror groups and organizations to spread radicalization. The  particular emphasis is on widows, single female-headed households, vulnerable youth,  religious minorities in support of the global earmark, and victims of torture and war— including Marla Ruzicka Iraqi War Victims beneficiaries.

State’s Bureau of Political and Military Affairs supports Explosive Remnants of War  (ERW) Clearance efforts in response to recent activities of ISIS in Iraq that have  dramatically altered the Conventional Weapons Destruction landscape. ISIS used  mass-produced, technologically advanced improvised explosive devices (IED) to  defend captured territory and target Iraqi Security Forces, as well as to booby trap  homes, public spaces, farm land, and infrastructure to discourage the return of IDPs. As  IDPs return to their communities, these devices continue to perpetuate ISIS’s reign of  terror by indiscriminately killing civilians and impeding stabilization operations. This  program, which State conducts through implementing partners, supports the urgent  survey and clearance of explosive hazards from critical infrastructure associated with  the delivery of clean water, electricity, healthcare, education, and transportation, as well  as other sites in areas of Iraq liberated from ISIS to facilitate follow-on stabilization  projects, the restoration of basic community services, and the return of IDPs. This  program also supports the survey and clearance of ERW in areas impacted by legacy  contamination in Iraq’s North and South. The overall goal is to assist efforts to defeat  ISIS and help the government of Iraq support the safe return of Iraqis that were  displaced from their homes by ISIS or liberation campaigns.

Conflict mitigation and stabilization effort Mine Risk Education

State’s description of effort and its goals   State’s Bureau of Political and Military Affairs conducts the Mine Risk Education and  Victims’ Assistance programs in Iraq through grants to implementing partners. The risk  education program teaches men, women, and children across Iraq about the dangers  posed by explosive hazards. This program focuses on IDPs who will be returning to  areas liberated from ISIS as well as communities who have already returned to  liberated areas. The program also provides risk education to people in North and South  Iraq who live and work near legacy ERW contamination. The goal of this program is to  strengthen citizen-responsive governance and security to prevent further instability and  violence as well as to bolster human security.

State’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement, Office of Africa and  Middle East Programs, is responsible for the Advance Human rights Training for Law  Enforcement Officers effort. It provides advanced human rights training to Nigerian  Police Force officers deploying to the northeast and to trainers from the force’s  academies and colleges (a train-the-trainer focus). The goal of the effort is to increase  the Nigerian Police Force’s capacity to better prevent, detect, respond to, and  investigate crime while protecting the rights of all citizens.

Arewa 24—Hausa Language Media Platform  State’s Bureau of African Affairs, Office of Security Affairs, was responsible for  supporting Arewa 24—Hausa Language Media Platform. Arewa 24 is a free-to-air  satellite TV channel and trans-media platform based in Kano, Nigeria. Positive  narratives intended to help counter violent extremism were inserted into general  entertainment programming aimed at young Hausa speakers in Northern Nigeria.  Arewa 24 contributed to a sustainable ecosystem of indigenous capacity to create,  develop, produce, and disseminate countering violent extremism (CVE) programming.  State supported this effort through grants to an implementing partner. State’s Bureau of  Counterterrorism also managed separate awards in support of this program. This effort  was a Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership (TSCTP) project, and the U.S.  Embassy Abuja Public Affairs Section also supported it. The goals of the effort were to  (1) sustain broadcast quality of credible, effective, and entertaining CVE television  programming; (2) increase the capacity of media professionals in Northern Nigeria to  produce CVE programming; (3) expand the reach of Arewa 24’s messaging in Nigeria  through agreements and arrangements with other distribution channels; and (4)  continue to build commercially derived revenue, paving the way to sustainability.  Although all U.S. funding for this program ended on September 30, 2017, Arewa 24  remains on the air through support from private Nigerian investors.

State’s Public Affairs Section at the U.S. Embassy Abuja conducts the Community  Engagement of Federal Security Agents in Peace and Trustbuilding effort through a  grant to an implementing partner. This project is intended to promote confidence- building measures between youth and government of Nigeria law enforcement and  security personnel in Kaduna state. The goal is to improve cooperation between local  residents and the government’s law and security forces essential to deterring and  capturing members of violent extremist organizations.

Conflict mitigation and stabilization   effort  CVE Messaging Center—White Dove (Farar  Tattabara)

State’s description of effort and its goals   State’s Bureau of African Affairs, Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs,  conducts this effort through a cooperative agreement and grant to an implementing  partner. This effort supports the establishment of a messaging center to produce three  original radio programs in the Hausa language broadcast weekly over 22 stations  across 19 states of northern Nigeria. The program also includes a social media  component. The three radio programs deal with themes of de-radicalization,  rehabilitation, and reintegration. The primary goal is to produce and disseminate  counter-violent extremism organization messaging to mitigate efficacy of such  organizations’ propaganda and recruitment efforts.

State’s Bureau of African Affairs, Office of Security Affairs, conducted the Ending Labor  Exploitation of Almajiri Children and De-Escalating Insecurity project through a grant to  an implementing partner. The project aimed to reduce vulnerabilities associated with  the Almajiri education system by (1) enhancing public awareness of the threat  presented to community security by the present state of degeneration of the system of  Almajiri education; (2) mobilizing the voices of key community stakeholders, including  teachers, parents, religious scholars and institutions; and (3) supporting the government  to put in place adequate laws and policies to reform the system and combat exploitation  of the Almajiri in the state of Kano. This effort was a TSCTP project, and the U.S.  Embassy Abuja Public Affairs Section also supported it. The project’s goal was to  contribute to ending the systemic labor exploitation and abuse of Almajiri children  prevalent in the Almajiranci system of education, and to reduce the risk of violence and  insecurity in Kano state in Northern Nigeria. This project ended on January 30, 2018  State’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement, Office of Africa and  Middle East Programs, is responsible for the Equipment Procurements for Police in  Northeast Nigeria effort. This program equips police commands, stations, and officers in  northeast Nigeria. The equipment includes military-grade tents, ponchos, poncho stuff  sacks, cots, flashlights, flashlight holsters, individual first aid kits, and portable  emergency lighting for 1,500 officers. The goal of this effort is to increase the Nigerian  Police Force’s capacity to provide security in the Northeast and to lay the foundation for  the safe and voluntary return of displaced persons when conditions are conducive.

State’s DRL, Office of Global Programming, is responsible for the Global Center on  Cooperative Security, Promoting Resilient Communities in Nigeria and Kenya effort.  The U.S. Embassy Abuja Political Section also supports this effort. This 2-year program  is designed to support existing networks of young civil society leaders; forge new  partnerships among local civil society organizations, young people, and government  stakeholders; facilitate collaborative learning activities; and organize small grant  assistance and in-kind support to local civil society organizations working to prevent  violent extremism. The goal of the effort is to mitigate threats of violent extremism in  Nigeria and Kenya by promoting community resilience and empowering youth leaders  to recognize and prevent violence committed by groups such as Boko Haram and Al  Shabaab.

State’s description of effort and its goals   State’s Bureau of African Affairs, Office of Security Affairs, conducted the Healing,  Reconciliation, and Counter-Radicalization in Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe State project  through a grant to an implementing partner. Project activities were designed to help  resolve tensions between individuals returning to local communities and those who  remained throughout periods of instability and to reduce prejudice and stigmatization of  those captured by Boko Haram (especially women who were raped and impregnated,  forced into marriage, and/or kept as sex slaves). Community resilience groups were  also created to promote community cohesion through the use of strategic  communications and counter narratives. This effort was a TSCTP project, and the U.S.  Embassy Abuja Public Affairs Section also supported it. This project ended on May 31,  2018.

State’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, Office of Anti- Crime Programs, is responsible for the International Law Enforcement Academy  Program (ILEA)—Countering Violent Extremism Series. Nigeria is one of the member  countries of ILEA Gaborone, ILEA Roswell, and the West Africa Regional Training  Center in Accra. In fiscal year 2017, Nigerian law enforcement and criminal justice  system personnel participated in a specialized Countering Violent Extremism (CVE)  course series, which included anticorruption, community policing, combatting CVE in  prisons, threat finance, post-blast investigations, and law enforcement techniques to  combat terrorism. The ILEA program generates course schedules annually based on  feedback from participant countries, like Nigeria, as well as U.S. federal law  enforcement, and State functional and geographic bureaus. The program is also a  cooperative effort that involves the expertise of trainers and agents from federal, state,  municipal, and foreign law enforcement agencies. The ILEA program pursues three  core objectives: building the capacity of foreign criminal justice partners of the United  States to stop crime before it comes to the United States, fostering partnerships across  national borders within important regions of the world, and advancing partner nations’  engagement with U.S. law enforcement agencies. The ILEA program is an important  part of the interagency U.S. effort to combat transnational criminal organizations and  combat violent extremism, which facilitates stability in individual countries and regions,  including Nigeria.

State’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement, Office of Africa and  Middle East Programs, awarded funds to the U.S. Institute of Peace to conduct the  Justice and Security Dialogues project. Under this effort, citizens and authorities work to  jointly address important security challenges within select communities of the Sahel and  Maghreb, including in Nigeria. Participants share knowledge and skills and support  each other across the broader region. The project is targeting a community population  of 430,000 in the north local government of Jos in Plateau state. The goal of the effort is  to improve the relationship between security providers and citizens and to support  civilian security forces to be more effective, accountable, and responsive to community  needs.

Conflict mitigation and stabilization effort Northern Governors Dialogue

State’s description of effort and its goals   State’s Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations, Office of Africa Operations,  awarded funds to the U.S. Institute of Peace to conduct the Northern Governors  Dialogue. This effort supports governors of northern states, relevant federal government  officials, and representative civil society leaders in addressing conflict drivers and  stabilization-related challenges. The program is intended to strengthen their collective  understanding of relevant issues and their capacity to develop sustainable and inclusive  policies. The goal is to have an invested group of northern governors and a Senior  Working Group of civil society leaders that have (1) identified a set of citizen-informed  priority policy areas for northern Nigeria to prevent and resolve violent conflict, as well  as to enhance stabilization efforts where appropriate, and (2) demonstrated a continued  willingness to engage together on specific conflict-related issues.

State’s Public Affairs Section at the U.S. Embassy Abuja, conducts the Open Minds  Project through a grant to an implementing partner. This project intends to train and  mentor 80 primary and secondary school students from Plateau state and Federal  Capital Territory in critical thinking skills in support of CVE efforts. The goal is to better  enable participants to resist messaging and recruitment efforts of violent extremist  organizations  State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Office of Global  Programming, is responsible for the Search for Common Ground, Early Warning/Early  Response effort. This program establishes community-based early warning and early  response systems and strengthens the capacity of state and local actors to secure  communities. The intent is to enhance community and state actors’ ability to protect  citizens from imminent threats from Boko Haram. Overall goals of the program are to  increase capacity of target communities to identify and analyze early warning signs of  violence; to increase collaboration between communities and local government officials  and security actors in responding to these signs; and to enhance mutual understanding  of their roles in protecting their communities.

State’s Public Affairs Section at the U.S. Embassy Abuja conducts the Strengthening  Community Resilience through Peace Building project through a grant to an  implementing partner. The project intends to train 50 youth in conflict resolution. The  participants, supported by traditional elders, engage in local community-driven  initiatives. The goal is to strengthen conflict resolution capacity at the community level  by promoting peaceful dialogue and tolerance in S. Kaduna state.

State’s Bureau of African Affairs, Office of Security Affairs, conducts this effort through  a grant to an implementing partner who is to produce and air 52 episodes of a weekly  radio drama based on stories of victims of the Boko Haram insurgency, especially  women and children. The series focuses on reducing the risks of radicalization and  recruitment, while encouraging adult listeners to reflect on the effects of the insurgency  on their communities and vulnerable groups. The B Chronicles, created in English but  performed in Hausa and Kanuri, are interpreted by the actors and aired on radio  stations in Bauchi, Gombe, Adamawa, Yobe, and Borno states. The series targets a  regional audience of approximately 6–8 million people. The goal of this project is to  chronicle and help mitigate the current security challenges in Northern and  Northeastern Nigeria through real life stories that encourage dialogue while fostering  peace, respect, and the spirit of community. This effort is a TSCTP project, and the U.S.  Embassy Abuja Public Affairs Section also supports it.

Conflict mitigation and stabilization effort Training Almajiri as Peace Promoters in Kano

State’s description of effort and its goals   State’s Public Affairs Section at the U.S. Embassy Abuja conducts the Training Almajiri  as Peace Promoters in Kano project through a grant to an implementing partner. This  project intends to train 240 students from the formal education system and the  traditional Islamic school system (Almajiri) as peace ambassadors. Student participants  advocate for peaceful conflict resolution, improvements in youth education, and  incorporation of Almajiri schools into the formal educational system.

State’s Public Affairs Section at the U.S. Embassy Abuja conducts the Training of Youth  Leaders and Community Influencers effort through a grant to an implementing partner.  The project intends to train 25 youth and community influencers from Adamawa, Borno,  and Yobe states as CVE messengers with enhanced leadership skills. The goal is to  develop peer-to-peer CVE messengers with proven community influence to mitigate  propaganda and recruitment efforts of violent extremist organizations.

State’s Public Affairs Section at the U.S. Embassy Abuja conducts the Transformation  of Farmer/Herder Conflict in Plateau State effort through a grant to an implementing  partner. This project convenes dialogues between farmer and herder stakeholders in  Plateau state to develop mechanisms to resolve disputes between these groups. The  goal is to establish a multistakeholder peace architecture committee to periodically  review conflict risks and to develop a framework for adjudicating conflict.

State’s Public Affairs Section at the U.S. Embassy Abuja, conducts the United in  Diversity effort through a grant to an implementing partner. This project aims to  increase a core team of 25 youths’ conflict resolution skills and, through a Training of  Trainers model, to train additional youths. The goal is to facilitate interreligious dialogue  between religious groups.

State’s Bureau of African Affairs, Office of Security Affairs, conducts the Vocational  Training for Women in Adamawa State through a grant to an implementing partner. This  effort is a TSCTP project, and the U.S. Embassy Abuja Public Affairs section also  supports it. This project intends to provide rural women living in IDP camps and the  surrounding communities with training and employment opportunities in poultry and  cash-crop farming to help raise their social status, enhance their self-esteem, and  encourage self-reliance to contribute income to their households. The goal is to help  these women learn to recognize and resist techniques and methods of recruitment and  radicalization to violence; and provide options for resisting recruitment into violent  extremist organizations.

State’s Bureau of African Affairs, Office of Security Affairs, conducts the Youth for  Healthy Communities Initiative through a grant to an implementing partner. This  program is a community initiative anchored in athletic competition that offers concurrent  workshops and creates social and mentoring networks to engage youth on issues of  civic responsibility, conflict mitigation, and the dangers of drug abuse and violent  extremism. This effort is a TSCTP project, and the U.S. Embassy Abuja Public Affairs  Section also supports it. The goals of this program are to build teamwork and  leadership skills, foster citizen responsibility, and counter drug abuse and the risk of  recruitment and radicalization to violence among vulnerable youth in the Kano city  metropolitan area.

Conflict mitigation and stabilization effort SYRIA

State’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA), Office of Near Eastern Affairs Assistance  Coordination, is responsible for the Access to Justice and Community Security  Program, which provides training, equipment, and stipends to Free Syrian Police  stations in liberated areas of Syria. The United States supports 56 Free Syrian Police  stations comprising approximately 3,500 officers. Support includes vehicles, equipment,  stipends, and training to help moderate community security actors to establish public  security and stand up local unarmed civilian police forces. State conducts this effort  through an implementing partner, and NEA manages this effort as part of the Syria  Transition Assistance Response Team based in U.S. Embassy Ankara. The program’s  goal is to improve local stability, mitigate sectarian violence, and counter the influence  of violent extremists.

State’s NEA, Office of Near Eastern Affairs Assistance Coordination, conducts the  Building the Legitimacy of Local Councils effort through an implementing partner. NEA  manages this effort as part of the Syria Transition Assistance Response Team, which is  based in U.S. Embassy Ankara. The effort aims to build the capacity of local and  provincial councils and civilian networks through (1) organizational development,  standardized processes, and institutional capacity for effective civil administration; (2)  strengthened cooperation between local and provincial councils, civil society  organizations, Free Syrian Police, technical directorates, and moderate armed actors;  (3) increased engagement between citizens and opposition governance structures; (4)  increased inclusiveness in governance structures, especially with regard to  representation of women, religious and ethnic minorities, and other marginalized  populations; and (5) more effective provision of basic local governance services to meet  citizen priorities and needs through cash subgrants for essential services. The goal of  the effort is to strengthen the moderate Syrian institutions by building their capacity to  provide services, promote stability, counter extremism, and advocate for political  dialogue.

State’s NEA, Office of Near Eastern Affairs Assistance Coordination, conducts the Civil  Society in Syria effort through an implementing partner. NEA manages this effort as  part of the Syria Transition Assistance Response Team, which is based in U.S.  Embassy Ankara. Through cash subgrants, this effort works to enhance civil society  and advocacy organizations in eastern and western Syria to implement activities that  (1) improve communication mechanisms with constituents and key stakeholders in  reconciliation, conflict mediation, and advocacy efforts; (2) increase citizen  understanding of rights and civic responsibilities; (3) enhance civil society advocacy  efforts to promote strengthened competitive, inclusive, and transparent political  processes; (4) improve organizational structures and internal processes that allow civil  society organizations to become more effective public advocates; and (5) provide  community services, such as vocational training for women and youth and essential  services in areas newly liberated from ISIS where governance bodies are still emerging.  The goal of the effort is to increase the ability of civil society organizations to serve,  represent, and advocate for all Syrians and hold local governance structures  accountable.

State’s description of effort and its goals   State’s DRL conducts the Civil Society Support for Peacebuilding, Reconciliation, and  Conflict Mitigation effort through implementing partners. These efforts provide funding  to build local leadership and reconciliation processes and to support activities related to  inclusive peace-building and conflict mitigation that are specifically designed to be more  responsive to the evolving nature of the conflict. Current programming focuses on local  community members, including women, religious minorities, and other marginalized  populations, to use advocacy and other skills needed to effectively engage with armed  factions. This work also supports the political transition process by fortifying the  conditions for stabilization and empowering local leadership.

State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs supports ERW clearance efforts in areas of  northeast Syria recently liberated from ISIS, in particular the urban centers of Raqqa  and Tabqa cities. Following their defeat, ISIS placed mass-produced, technologically  advanced IEDs and booby-traps in homes, public spaces, farm land, and infrastructure  to discourage the return of IDPs and cut off essential services. As IDPs return to their  communities, these devices continue to perpetuate ISIS’s reign of terror by  indiscriminately killing civilians and impeding stabilization operations. ERW clearance  programs, which State conducts through implementing partners, supports the urgent  marking, survey and clearance of explosive hazards from critical infrastructure  associated with the delivery of clean water, electricity, healthcare, education, and  governance to facilitate follow-on stabilization projects, the restoration of basic  community services, and the return of IDPs in coordination with USAID and other State  offices.

State’s DRL conducts the Meaningful Justice and Accountability for Syria efforts  through implementing partners. These efforts involve the documentation of human  rights violations committed by all parties; increased coordination among international  and local civil society groups on transitional justice processes, including  memorialization; and support to survivors of torture, sexual and gender-based violence,  and other gross human rights violations. The goal is to support the capacity of local civil  society groups to secure and preserve documentation of human rights abuses and  increase advocacy around accountability and transitional justice mechanisms, including  domestic and regional led efforts.

State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs delivers Mine Risk Education, through  nongovernmental organizations, to affected communities by teaching children and  young adults about the dangers posed by explosive hazards. Also, due to the lack of  national capacity, a mine action nongovernmental organization collects, stores, and  disseminates data on areas contaminated and cleared to the coalition,  nongovernmental organizations, humanitarian community, and military.

State’s DRL awarded funds to the U.S. Institute of Peace to conduct the Strengthening  Social Cohesion in Northern Syria effort, which aims to provide positive engagement  and lines of communication across religious and sectarian groups, particularly in key  districts prone to sectarian violence. The goals are to (1) support Syrian civilian  networks to maintain stabilization and mitigate violence and (2) manage localized  ceasefires, including reconciliation and stabilization of areas as they are being  liberated.

Conflict mitigation and stabilization effort Syria’s Education Program (Idarah/Injaz)

State’s description of effort and its goals   State’s NEA, Office of Near Eastern Affairs Assistance Coordination, conducts Syria’s  Education Program through an implementing partner that works closely with opposition  education directorates in Western Syria and moderate education actors in newly  liberated areas in the east to (1) support the development of the Syrian Interim  Government’s aligned Provincial Education Directorates and other education actors to  better manage education in non–regime-controlled communities; (2) provide stipends  and salaries for education staff to ensure schools have people to deliver education; (3)  engage in teacher training; (4) provide light refurbishments and supplies for damaged  schools, and; (5) provide psychosocial support and training to children, teachers, and  community members. NEA manages this effort as part of the Syria Transition  Assistance Response Team, which is based in U.S. Embassy Ankara. The goal of this  effort is to improve equitable access to Syrians to moderate, vital education services for  youth and children.

We did not independently verify whether State’s reported list of conflict mitigation and stabilization  efforts included all such efforts in Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria (and in neighboring countries for Syria).

For the purposes of this list of efforts and goals, “efforts” includes what our sources referred to as  “programs,” “program-level initiatives,” and “projects.”

Countries for which State conducts efforts are shaded in gray.

Appendix III: USAID Reported Conflict Mitigation and Stabilization Efforts for Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria, Fiscal Year 2017

USAID’s description of effort and its goals  The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), along with other international  donors, supplies funding to the UNDP FFS. The UNDP, at the request of the Prime  Minister of Iraq, and with support from leading members of the Coalition to Degrade and  Defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), established the FFS in June 2015  to help rapidly stabilize newly retaken areas. The FFS works in areas liberated from the  Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)—another name for ISIL—to restore essential  services and kick-start the local economy. The FFS rehabilitates water, health, electricity,  education, and municipal light infrastructure. The FFS also provides temporary  employment to local laborers to remove rubble and grants to small businesses to restock  and reopen. The aim of the FFS is to help restore confidence in the leading role of the  Iraqi government in newly retaken areas, give populations a sense of progress and  forward momentum, and enable the voluntary return of internally displaced persons.

USAID’s Office of Peace and Democratic Governance (PDG) is responsible for the  Building Bridges Between Herders and Farmers in Nasarawa, Plateau, and Kaduna States  effort. The overall goal is to strengthen engagement and understanding to reduce conflict  between the nomadic pastoralist and sedentary farming communities in the three states.  Given the herders’ and farmers’ ethnic, religious, economic, and lifestyle differences, these  two groups rarely come into contact with each other outside of confrontational scenarios or  passing encounters, creating a deadly social disconnect that risks dehumanizing each  community in the other’s eyes. The program aims to achieve its goal by (1) improving  intercultural understanding between nomadic pastoralist and sedentary farming  communities and (2) building capable coalitions between community leaders, civil society,  and government to prevent conflict between nomadic pastoralist and sedentary farming  communities.

USAID’s Education Office is responsible for the ECR, which, addresses the main learning  needs of internally displaced and host community pupils affected by the crisis in Northeast  Nigeria through nonformal learning centers, Youth Learning Centers, and Adolescent Girls  Learning Centers. The ECR provides learning in protective centers, supports integration of  pupils from nonformal to formal schools, and works within communities hosting internally  displaced persons. For example, the ECR established more than 935 nonformal learning  centers that provided services to internally displaced children and youth and their host  communities affected by violence in Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, and Yobe.  Nonformal centers may be located in churches, mosques, Qur’anic schools, and other  locations. The services provided included access to quality education, psycho-social  counseling, child-friendly spaces, and opportunities for peer reading, mentoring,  counseling, and vocational skills training. The ECR also trains and mobilizes instructors to  provide conflict-sensitive lessons, while engaging communities and local leaders to  increase education options, such as nonformal learning centers. The ECR has provided  assistance to over 80,341 individuals since 2014. The overall goal is to support the efforts  of northeastern states and local governments to take full ownership for the continued  education of internally displaced children.

Conflict mitigation and stabilization effort Engaging Communities for Peace in Nigeria

USAID’s description of effort and its goals  USAID’s PDG is responsible for the Engaging Communities for Peace in Nigeria effort.  The initial goal was to reduce violence between farmers and pastoralists in Nigeria’s  Middle Belt states in target sites by (1) strengthening the capacity of farmer and pastoralist  leaders to resolve disputes in an inclusive, sustainable manner; (2) leveraging social and  economic opportunities to build trust across lines of division; and (3) fostering engagement  among farmer-pastoralist communities, local authorities, and neighboring communities to  prevent conflict. Under a scope and cost extension, PDG expanded the effort to help with  conflict sensitivity integration throughout the USAID mission’s portfolio, and build the  technical and operations capacity of nongovernmental organizations working on peace  building in the northeast. PDG intends to do this by providing (1) conflict mitigation,  monitoring and evaluation, and administrative/financial management training to civil  society organizations in the northeast, and (2) conflict analysis and conflict mitigation  training for USAID mission personnel and implementing partners anywhere in the country.

USAID’s Office of Transitional Initiatives (OTI) launched the Nigeria Regional Transition  Initiative in September 2014 to minimize conditions that allow terrorism to flourish, in turn  reducing Boko Haram and ISIS-West Africa recruitment and support for their ideology and  the insecurity they cause. Following a Strategic Review Session in September 2017, OTI  established a new program goal: to deny terrorists space to operate. The goal has a two  pronged focus: (1) to “compete” with ISIS-West Africa, thereby reducing its appeal before  it is able to seize and hold significant territory and (2) to continue to work on issues that  weaken Boko Haram’s ability to operate. OTI’s two main objectives to achieve this goal  are to offer alternatives to extremist action for vulnerable individuals and increase  community resilience to extremist action.

Training of Religious Leaders for National  Coexistence (TOLERANCE)

USAID’s PDG is responsible for the TOLERANCE effort, which aims to support stability in  Nigeria by enhancing the legitimacy and capacity of governance structures to defend  religious freedom. TOLERANCE supports community-based peacebuilding approaches by  strengthening the capacity of religious and traditional leaders, women and youth groups,  government officials, and civil society to mitigate and manage conflicts, and improve  responses to threats and outbreaks of violence. TOLERANCE is implemented in seven  states—Borno, Bauchi, Imo, Kaduna, Kano, Plateau, and Sokoto. A human rights funding  component promotes the culture of interfaith peaceful coexistence between target states in  the North and South, respect for human rights, religious freedom and nonviolent elections.  The goal of TOLERANCE is to develop an active network of religious, government, and  civil society leaders that can effectively address ethno-religious violence in Northern  Nigeria and beyond through shared strategies and common messages that have strong  resonance and popular support from a wide range of stakeholders.

Contributions to the Syria Recovery Trust  Fund (SRTF)

USAID contributes funding to the SRTF, a multidonor trust fund initiated by the Group of  Friends of the Syrian People and its Working Group on Economic Recovery and  Development. The SRTF’s core objective is to relieve the suffering of the Syrian people  affected by the ongoing conflict through recovery and rehabilitation efforts undertaken in  partnership with the Interim Government of the Syrian Opposition Coalition, local councils,  local community organizations, and service providers. While the conflict continues, the  SRTF assists Syrian communities in opposition-controlled territories by funding essential  services and early recovery programming in critical sectors, including health, electricity,  water, agriculture and food security, education, and waste management. For example, the  SRTF completed the renovation of two gynecological operating rooms, two obstetrics  rooms, adult and pediatric intensive care units, and provided incubators, an oxygen  generation system, and 6 months’ worth of essential medications to a hospital in Aleppo  Governorate so that it could treat an average of 1,000 patients each month. More than 2  million Syrians have received assistance through more than 30 SRTF projects. USAID  funds totaling almost $60 million to date have leveraged other donor funds totaling $190  million. USAID’s goal is to support the restoration of essential services and early recovery.  USAID’s Bureau for the Middle East (ME) provides support for the SRTF.

USAID’s ME is responsible for the PRIDE program, which supports the establishment of  robust, inclusive, effective, and accountable democratic processes and institutions in  opposition-held areas and areas liberated from ISIS and advances freedom, dignity, and  development. The goal of the program is to increase political and civic participation and  representation of women, youth, and minorities, to foster public and stakeholder  confidence in peaceful and representative transitional political processes and bolster  opposition credibility. PRIDE is also intended to increase knowledge and understanding of  democratic processes among the Syrian population, including consensus building,  coalition formation, citizen and stakeholder engagement, and elections, which will enhance  an inclusive Syrian-led transition.

USAID’s ME and the Offices of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance and Food for Peace are  responsible for the SLS program, which is intended to help increase production and  productivity of key products that have both food security and market potential, in  moderate, opposition-held areas and areas liberated from ISIS. The effort is based on the  theory that if communities have humanitarian support in the short-term and have access to  agricultural inputs and extension, they will adopt behaviors that increase productivity along  with household-level income, ultimately improving food security and resilience to shocks.  ME and the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance have funded an implementing partner to  initiate this effort in fiscal year 2017. If this effort is successful, USAID intends to replicate  this effort in other barley-belt areas of Syria, including in the Idleb, Raqqa, and Hasakah  governorates.

USAID’s ME is responsible for the SES II effort, which supports the restoration of essential  services through local councils in communities. The essential services include support for  water services, electricity, sewage systems, public use buildings, agricultural  infrastructure, and market access. The program provides technical and material  assistance, including capacity building for local councils and civil society, engineering  expertise and other training, and cash grants to communities. The goal of the program is  to restore essential services and strengthen institutions in non-regime areas.

Conflict mitigation and stabilization effort Syria Regional Program (SRP)

USAID’s description of effort and its goals  USAID’s OTI is responsible for the SRP. The SRP works closely with trusted and vetted  local organizations to implement quick-impact activities that promote an inclusive and  stable Syria. OTI has conducted this effort since 2012 through an implementing partner  that has implemented about 538 activities through about 155 local and provincial partners  and 570 subpartners with a budget of about $172.5 million. OTI works along three lines of  effort: (1) enable the early recovery of areas liberated from ISIS; (2) strengthen  communities’ ability to resist extremist groups; and (3) maintain and increase the influence  of strategic moderate actors. For example, OTI partners restore services in communities  liberated from ISIS to reduce ISIS’s appeal; support local councils and civil society  organizations, increasing the influence of moderate actors in strategic areas where  extremist groups are vying for control; and support Syrian Civil Defense and impartial  emergency responders who amplify the voice of Syrians struggling against extremism and  authoritarianism. OTI aims to support resistance to extremists, particularly ISIS, by  strengthening individuals and groups who are saving lives, meeting basic needs,  promoting moderate values, and engaging with vulnerable populations.

We did not independently verify whether USAID’s reported list of conflict mitigation and stabilization  efforts included all such efforts in Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria (and in neighboring countries for Syria).

USAID conducted its efforts through grants and contracts to implementing partners.

Countries for which USAID conducts efforts are shaded in gray.

Appendix IV: DOD Reported Stabilization Efforts for Iraq and Syria, Fiscal Year 2017

DOD’s description of effort and its goals  Medical Staff of the Combined Joint Forces Land Component Command–Operation  Inherent Resolve provided immediate medical trauma supplies to the World Health  Organization to fill a gap in medical supplies available to treat injured civilians. The project  was coordinated with the Department of State (State) and the U.S. Agency for  International Development (USAID) and was funded through the Overseas Humanitarian,  Disaster, and Civic Aid (OHDACA) appropriation. The project was intended to increase the  chance of survival for civilians affected by military operations; increase civilian confidence  in the government and the humanitarian assistance community; and provide access,  influence, and visibility to the Department of Defense (DOD).

U.S. Army Civil Affairs (CA) personnel of Special Operations Joint Task Force–Operation  Inherent Resolve (SOJTF–OIR) provided winterization kits including jackets, hats, gloves,  socks, and blankets to Syrian civilians displaced from their homes in the Raqqa region.  The project provided much needed cold weather items. This project was coordinated with  State and USAID and funded through the OHDACA appropriation. The project was  intended to alleviate human suffering; pull the population away from Islamic State of Iraq  and the Levant (ISIL) population centers; and provide access, visibility, and influence for  DOD forces.

U.S. Army CA personnel of SOJTF–OIR provided 1,200 winterization kits consisting of  jackets, hats, gloves, and socks to Syrian families in the Hamad desert. This project  addressed a critical need among the poorest and most vulnerable of the Syrian  population. The project was coordinated with State and USAID and was funded through  the OHDACA appropriation. The project was intended to alleviate human suffering;  support DOD efforts to diminish ISIL influence; and provide access, visibility, and influence  for DOD forces.

U.S. Army CA personnel of SOJTF–OIR provided assistance, including food, cooking fuel,  construction material, and garbage removal, for up to 31,000 civilians in Manbij, Syria.  DOD undertook this project because USAID and State were unable to provide any support  to the civilians in need. This project was coordinated with State and USAID and was  funded through the OHDACA appropriation. The project was intended to alleviate human  suffering and improve the civilian populace’s perception of the local council.

U.S. Army CA personnel of SOJTF–OIR provided basic education supplies and  equipment, including desks, chairs, and whiteboards, to schools in Karamah. This project  was coordinated with State and USAID and funded through the OHDACA appropriation.  The project was intended to assist in reestablishment of education services in the area,  enhance the local council’s ability to provide essential services and increase their standing  with the community, and provide access to DOD forces operating in the area.

U.S. Army CA personnel of SOJTF–OIR provided basic education supplies and  equipment, including desks, chairs, whiteboards, and backpacks, to schools in Kobani.  This project was coordinated with State and USAID and funded through the OHDACA  appropriation. The project was intended to assist in reestablishment of education services,  improve the capacity of the local government to provide essential services; improve the  perception of the local council; and provide access, visibility, and influence for DOD  forces.

Conflict stabilization effort Manbij School Supplies

DOD’s description of effort and its goals  U.S. Army CA personnel of SOJTF–OIR provided classroom furniture and school supplies  to 4,000 students in Manbij. The project, managed through the local council, provided a  viable opportunity to resume attending classes for students who had not attended school  in over 4 years. The project was coordinated with State and USAID and funded through  the OHDACA appropriation. The project was intended to assist in reestablishment of  education services; improve the perception of the local council; and provide access,  visibility, and influence for DOD forces.

U.S. Army CA personnel of SOJTF–OIR provided winterization kits, including jackets,  hats, gloves, socks, and blankets, to civilians in the Raqqa region. The project provided  much needed winter clothing to civilians who had fled their homes due to ISIL operations.  The project was coordinated with State and USAID and funded through the OHDACA  appropriation. The project was conducted through the local council and intended to  alleviate human suffering, build the council’s legitimacy, and provide access to DOD  forces.

U.S. Army CA personnel of SOJTF–OIR provided winterization kits, including jackets,  hats, gloves, socks, and blankets to civilians in the Manbij region. The project provided  cold weather items, through the local council, to civilians fleeing ISIL forces because State  and USAID were unable to provide support. The project was coordinated with State and  USAID and funded through the OHDACA appropriation. The project was intended to  alleviate human suffering, elevate the standing of the local council with the populace, and  improve access to DOD forces operating in the area.

We did not independently verify whether DOD’s reported list of conflict mitigation and stabilization  efforts included all such efforts in Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria (and in neighboring countries for Syria).

For the purposes of this list of efforts and goals, “efforts” includes what our sources referred to as  “programs,” “program-level initiatives,” and “projects.”

Countries for which DOD conducts efforts are shaded in gray.

Appendix V: USIP Reported Conflict Prevention and Resolution Efforts for Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria, Fiscal Year 2017

Conflict prevention and resolution effort IRAQ

USIP’s description of effort and its goals  The U.S. Institute of Peace’s (USIP) Middle East and Africa Center (MEA) is  responsible for the Advancing the Role of Iraqi Minorities in Stabilization and  Governance effort with funding from and in partnership with the Department of State’s  (State) Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. This effort creates  mechanisms for gathering and sharing high-quality information with key Iraqi decision  makers and stakeholders on the minorities’ situations, regardless of whether these  groups return home or remain displaced. The project utilizes and acts upon  information gathered through facilitated local dialogues that prevent violence  (especially violence stemming from revenge killing) and/or reduce tensions between  displaced minorities and host communities. Improving access to this information is  intended to strengthen the role of civil society in stabilization and enable Iraqi decision  makers to enact more inclusive and information-based governance policies. The  specific objectives are to (1) improve key decision makers’ understanding of conflict  drivers in liberated and minority-rich areas and (2) reduce tensions among and  between communities in Nineveh and other minority areas during the stabilization  process and in the build-up to provincial-level, Kurdish Regional Government, and  national elections. The goal of the effort is to improve stabilization and promote  inclusive governance in areas liberated from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)  in Nineveh province and other minority-rich territories.

USIP’s MEA and its strategic partner, Sanad for Peacebuilding, conduct the Facilitated  Dialogues effort in Iraq. The effort supports facilitated, outcome-oriented dialogue  processes that enable local reconciliation in areas liberated from ISIS. This type of  engagement has two main objectives in the current context: (1) preventing revenge  acts of violence by communities in conflict and (2) identifying and addressing the main  barriers impeding the return of internally displaced persons (IDP). Such engagement is  intended to increase the resilience of communities to the persistent threat of violent  extremism from ISIS remnants, the Popular Mobilization Forces, or others.

USIP’s Center for Applied Conflict Transformation (ACT) is responsible for the JSD –  Lessons Learned effort. Approximately 200 security and community representatives  from three major cities affected by the aftermath of ISIS participated in nine JSD  sessions as part of an assessment on preventing violent extremism in Iraq. The project  culminated in a conference attended by members of the JSD-Community of Practice  (COP), a network of local leaders committed to dialogue processes established by  USIP through its ongoing engagement in Iraq to support dialogue. The project’s three  objectives are to (1) better understand local drivers of violent extremism through the  multiple perspectives included in the JSD-COP, (2) strengthen capacity of the JSD- COP to continue efforts to sustain local stability and promote the rule of law, and (3)  identify key lessons learned to further strengthen future JSD initiatives in the region.

USIP’s ACT is responsible for the Mapping Post-ISIS Iraqi Religious Groups for Peace  and Reconciliation effort. ACT is partnering with country teams to undertake mappings  of influential religious actors, institutions, and ideas in conflict zones. This project  identifies and maps influential religious leaders in specific conflict zones with the long- term goal of including them in future Iraqi-led mediations, dialogues, and peace and  reconciliation efforts.

USIP’s description of effort and its goals  USIP’s MEA is responsible for the Problem-Solving Dialogues for Iraq’s Religious  Minorities and Governance Issues with funding from and in partnership with State’s  Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. The effort addresses tensions and  disputes between the Christian and Shabak communities in Nineveh in the wake of  ISIS, pushing toward outcome-oriented solutions through facilitated dialogues led by  experienced Iraqi facilitators. This effort also provides the USIP-created Alliance of  Iraqi Minorities (AIM) with experience in project development and execution as AIM  seeks to improve its impact on the provincial budget process, curriculum reform,  outreach, and influencing specific legislation pertaining to minorities. The effort  supports AIM’s organizational capacity toward becoming more independent, self- reliant, and self-sustaining through developing the capacity and assuming total  responsibility for its organizational, administrative, programmatic, financial, and  logistical affairs. Establishing facilitated dialogues among Iraq’s religious minorities  and, most importantly, between those groups and the majority Muslim communities, is  especially important as Nineveh is home to one of Iraq’s largest concentration of  minorities. The goal of the effort is for Iraqis—minorities in particular—to prevent the  recurrence of violence through peaceful dialogue with each other and various  stakeholders, including national, provincial, and local governments.

USIP’s MEA is responsible for the Support to Sanad for Peacebuilding effort. This  effort provides ongoing technical and financial support to USIP’s strategic national  partner, Sanad, and the networks it manages, including the Network of Iraqi  Facilitators and the Alliance of Iraqi Minorities. Sanad and its affiliated networks serve  as a resource for conflict analysis, bringing disputing parties together through  facilitated dialogue and providing technical expertise for training and peacebuilding.  The goal, through helping Sanad become Iraq’s leading and self-sustaining  peacebuilding organization, is to increase Iraqi capacity and leadership in conflict  prevention and mitigation.

USIP’s MEA is responsible for the Training Iraqis in Conflict Management effort. This  project provides training to both governmental and nongovernmental organizations,  including officials and civil society activists in Kurdistan working to prevent the  escalation of tensions among the nearly 1.8 million IDPs located there and in local  communities. It also provides technical support to the Kurdish Regional Government  on the implementation of Iraq’s national action plan under United Nations Security  Council Resolution 1325, and ongoing assistance to Iraq’s National Reconciliation  Committee and other governmental bodies that play a key role in local and national  reconciliation. The goal of the project is to enable a variety of Iraqi organizations to use  the tools and skills taught to them by professional trainers and USIP staff to resolve  local tensions that have the potential to reignite sectarian tensions on a large scale.  Building the skills of Iraqis in this field is intended to enable them to solve issues  stemming from extremist violence and local sectarian conflict without external aid, thus  stopping violence at its sources before it spreads to other communities and causes  further destabilization.

USIP’s description of effort and its goals  USIP’s ACT was responsible for the Youth Leaders’ Exchange with His Holiness the  Dalai Lama. In November 2017, USIP and the Dalai Lama hosted a second annual  dialogue with youth peacebuilders drawn from countries across Africa, Asia, and the  Middle East, including Iraq. Many of these countries grapple with the world’s deadliest  conflicts, as well as campaigns by extremist groups to incite youth to violence. The  youth leaders are among their countries’ most effective peacebuilders. The dialogue  with the Dalai Lama was intended to help them to build the practical skills and  personal resilience they need to work against the tensions or violence in their  homelands. The overarching goal was to strengthen the capacity of youth to create  positive change as leaders and peacebuilders in their communities by partnering with  more traditional leaders.

USIP’s MEA is responsible for the development of a USIP strategy for countering  violent extremism (CVE) for Nigeria that is integrated with its Nigeria country strategy  and consistent with USIP’s overall CVE strategy. Working in collaboration with ACT,  MEA partners with a local organization for project implementation and uses local staff  for support. This effort is intended to further USIP’s current process of strengthening  its Nigeria country strategy to guide program initiatives for its Africa team and USIP  more broadly. The goal is to deepen and expand USIP’s programming and thought  leadership in the field of CVE through initiatives based on an evidence-based  assessment.

USIP’s MEA and ACT are responsible for the Election Security Assessment. Together  with selected partners, USIP began three assessment rounds in Washington, D.C.,  and Nigeria focused on assessing election violence risks and gaps in electoral security  and peacebuilding planning. USIP works closely with State’s Nigeria desk, USAID’s  political section, the USAID’s mission at U.S. Embassy Abuja, and relevant  international and local partners engaged in election programming. The assessment will  produce programmatic recommendations to address identified vulnerabilities and seize  opportunities for the promotion of peaceful elections. The goal of the effort is to help  ensure that the prevention activities by USIP, U.S. government partners and civil  society are better integrated and evidence-based.

Generation Change Fellows Program (GCFP)  USIP’s ACT is responsible for the GCFP, which strengthens youth leaders’  peacebuilding skills and creates a community of practice through which they can learn  from and mentor each other, share best practices, and work to create positive change  in their communities. GCFP carefully selects small cohorts of dedicated peacebuilders  aged 18–35 through a highly competitive application process. These Fellows hold  leadership roles within their local communities and tackle challenges, from countering  violent extremism to enhancing gender equality. The goal of the GCFP is to increase  youth leaders’ participation in and contribution to conflict transformation and positive  social change in conflict-affected communities.

USIP’s ACT, with funding from and in partnership with State’s Bureau of International  Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, is responsible for the Justice and Security  Dialogue Project in the Sahel and Maghreb. The project offers opportunities to  develop, refine, and test models and tools through field pilot experimentation in six  countries, including Nigeria. The project aims to strengthen the relationship between  civilian security services and communities at the local level and to pilot a model for  bridging the gap between police and citizens for use across the region. Through a  series of dialogues and activities supported by USIP and local partners, participants  will collaboratively identify and address concrete security challenges at the local level.

Conflict prevention and resolution effort  Lake Chad Basin and Sahel Working Group  USIP’s MEA is responsible for the Lake Chad Basin and Sahel Working Group. USIP  USIP’s description of effort and its goals  will convene a working group focused on addressing the drivers of violent extremism in  the Lake Chad Basin and the Sahel. This will include developing a research  framework, drawing on ACT’s CVE assessment tool, and commissioning a series of  papers by academics, policy experts, and practitioners from countries across the  region. The goal is to advance USIP’s thought leadership in the field of preventing  violent extremism by studying the impact of the Boko Haram crisis in the context of  broader regional dynamics and the potential for more regional approaches to foster  resilience to violent extremism.

USIP’s MEA is responsible for the Lake Chad Basin Project, with funding from and in  partnership with State’s Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations. This project  builds upon over a decade of programming in Nigeria to implement a multiyear  program that seeks to strengthen the capacity of Nigerian opinion leaders and policy  makers, to foster sustainable and inclusive strategies toward addressing the root  causes of violent conflict, particularly in Northern Nigeria. Some activities included (1)  convening a 3-day symposium in Washington, D.C., of governors from states across  northern Nigeria to foster key exchanges and critical discussions with leading  American and international experts on the drivers of violent conflict in the region and  how to resolve them; (2) creating a senior working group of 11 Nigerian civic leaders  that can engage strategically with the governors and work collaboratively to articulate  a set of policy priority areas toward addressing the drivers of conflict; (3) conducting  quantitative and qualitative studies in Borno and Plateau states to understand citizen  perceptions to the drivers of violent conflict, and how policymakers should address  them; and (4) supporting sustained, facilitated engagement between the governors  and members of the senior working group to help to shape a more inclusive policy  platform toward preventing violent conflict and addressing stabilization needs in target  states across the north. The goal of this project is to have an invested group of  governors from across the northern states in Nigeria and a senior working group of  civic leaders identify a set of citizen-informed priority policy areas for northern Nigeria  to prevent and resolve violent conflict, increase stabilization efforts where appropriate,  and demonstrate a continued willingness to engage together on specific conflict- related issues.

USIP’s MEA is responsible for the Network of Nigerian Facilitators. USIP is identifying  and supporting a group of community leaders, including youth, women, and religious  leaders with dialogue facilitation skills to prepare, convene, and facilitate intergroup  dialogues in their communities. In addition to building the abilities of the facilitators to  locally manage conflict, USIP will provide financial support to the facilitators to  implement localized conflict management activities. The goal is to build capacity and  provide ongoing support to a network of community facilitators that can prevent and  resolve conflict nonviolently.

USIP’s MEA is responsible for the Nigeria Conversation Series. MEA partners with a  local organization to implement the series and uses local staff for support. The series  brings together a broad array of policy professionals for in-depth discussions on  current issues in Nigeria and to explore options for preventing and resolving violent  conflict in the country. The purpose of the series is to inform and influence Nigerian,  U.S., and international policies and programs that seek to address conflict in Nigeria.  The discussions seek to promote improved understanding and shared analysis of the  conflict dynamics in the country through engagement with informed researchers and  practitioners.

Conflict prevention and resolution effort  Nigeria’s Imam and Pastor: Faith at the Front  USIP’s MEA is responsible for Nigeria’s Imam and Pastor project. In fiscal year 2017,  USIP’s description of effort and its goals  the findings from USIP research were used to inform the production of a short USIP  video to contribute to understanding (1) the role of religious leaders in peacebuilding  and (2) that grassroots dialogues are necessary for reducing violence but are  complemented by changes in governance. Also, USIP produced a video series of  pieces to highlight the work and voices of USIP’s country and partner organizations  and provide practical tools to inform policymakers and partners in their work in  reducing violent conflict.

USIP’s ACT, with funding from and in partnership with USAID, is responsible for the  Research on Violent Extremism, Politics, Religion, and the Higher Education Sector in  the Lake Chad Basin effort. Under the rubric of the RESOLVE Network—a global  consortium of research organizations established by USIP—this project is intended to  enhance USAID’s assistance to the educational sector in the Lake Chad Basin region  by providing research support for locally driven analysis in Nigeria, Chad, and  Cameroon. The primary purpose of the RESOLVE Network initiative in the Lake Chad  Basin is to assess the role of the state, civil society, and other nonstate actors in  shaping the political divides over the role of religion in education and community and  state responses to extremism in Chad, Nigeria, and Cameroon.

USIP’s MEA is responsible for the Support to State Peacebuilding Institutions effort,  which is being implemented by a local partner with the support of local USIP staff in  Abuja. The Africa Team, in partnership with USIP’s ACT, provides training for the  Plateau Peacebuilding Agency, the Kaduna Peace Commission and the relevant  peacebuilding entities in the Borno state administration on conflict analysis, conflict  management and facilitation. USIP delivers the training through a combination of  online and in-person training. The Africa team identifies ways to engage the Interfaith  Mediation Center (the Imam and the Pastor) to share their expertise and experiences.  The goal is to advance the skills of the practitioner peacebuilding community in Nigeria  to inform policy to prevent and resolve conflict at the state-level through online and in- person training.

USIP’s MEA is responsible for the Supporting Transition to Civilian-Led Governance  and Security effort, which is being implemented by a local partner with the support of  local USIP staff in Abuja. The Africa team developed a framework for the transition  from military and vigilante security to community-oriented policing through (1) research  on comparative experiences in the transition from nonstate actors to civilian  governance and (2) a series of roundtables and engagements with The Multinational  Joint Task Force. The research seeks to incorporate USIP’s experiences in  Afghanistan, Iraq, Colombia, Nepal, and Myanmar to offer concrete lessons, tools, and  approaches. The goal is to contribute evidence-based and comparative research that  will inform discussions on civil-military relationships, justice, security, and rule of law  reform in the Northeast and Lake Chad Basin.

USIP’s MEA is responsible for the Women Preventing Violent Extremism effort, with  funding from and in partnership with State’s Bureau of Counterterrorism. The project is  implemented by a local organization. This project began as a pilot project in 2012 and  is designed to increase women’s agency and influence in strengthening community- level resilience to violent extremism through engagement and collaboration with  security actors. The project was piloted in Plateau and Kaduna states in Nigeria and in  Nairobi, Mombasa, and Garissa, Kenya. The project aims to understand ways in which  trust and cooperation between women in civil society and the security sector can best  be fostered and supported.

USIP’s description of effort and its goals  USIP’s ACT is responsible for the Youth Leaders’ Exchange with His Holiness the  Dalai Lama. In November 2017, USIP and the Dalai Lama hosted a second annual  dialogue with youth peacebuilders drawn from countries across Africa, including  Nigeria; Asia; and the Middle East. Many of these countries face the world’s deadliest  conflicts, as well as campaigns by extremist groups to incite youth to violence. The  youth leaders are among their countries’ most effective peacebuilders. The dialogue  with the Dalai Lama was intended to help them to build the practical skills and  personal resilience they need to work against the tensions or violence in their  homelands. The overarching goal was to strengthen the capacity of youth to create  positive change as leaders and peacebuilders in their communities by partnering with  more traditional leaders.

USIP’s MEA is responsible for the Dialogues with the Interfaith and Other Key Leaders  effort in partnership with and with funding from State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human  Rights, and Labor. In Northeastern Syria, USIP works with Syrian partners to  strengthen civil society’s engagement and coordinating role with civic, religious, and  tribal leaders in al-Qamishli/al-Qahtaniya. The effort aims to address drivers of  tensions and conflicts through an evidenced-based, outcome-oriented dialogue  process. The overall goal is to strengthen social cohesion among and between the  communities in Northern Syria, enable the return of displaced communities, and stem  potential conflict.

USIP’s MEA is responsible for three ongoing grants related to the Syria conflict in  neighboring countries: The first is a grant to War Child to work with a local network of  Jordanian organizations training young Syrian refugees in Amman and vicinity on  youth leadership, peacebuilding, and conflict resolution skills. The two other grants  fund (1) a Lebanese civic group that supported mediation and training aimed at  reducing refugee-related tensions in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley and to enable Syrian  refugees to find jobs and register their children in schools, and (2) a nongovernmental  organization that trained Syrian and Lebanese journalists on conflict-sensitive  reporting about the Syrian refugee crisis and on raising awareness of the benefits the  refugees bring to the host community. These grants are aimed at reducing tensions  that threaten peace and stability in Lebanon and Jordan because of the burdens of  their absorption of Syrian refugees.

USIP’s ACT was responsible for the Youth Leaders’ Exchange with His Holiness the  Dalai Lama. In November 2017, USIP and the Dalai Lama hosted a second annual  dialogue with youth peacebuilders drawn from countries across Africa, Asia, and the  Middle East, including Syria. Many of these countries face the world’s deadliest  conflicts, as well as campaigns by extremist groups to incite youth to violence. The  youth leaders are among their countries’ most effective peacebuilders. The dialogue  with the Dalai Lama was intended to help them to build the practical skills and  personal resilience they need to work against the tensions or violence in their  homelands. The overarching goal was to strengthen the capacity of youth to create  positive change as leaders and peacebuilders in their communities by partnering with  more traditional leaders.

We did not independently verify whether USIP’s reported list of conflict mitigation and stabilization  efforts included all such efforts in Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria (and in neighboring countries for Syria).

For the purposes of this list of efforts and goals, “efforts” includes what our sources also referred to as  “projects.”

Countries for which USIP conducts efforts are shaded in gray.

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of State

Appendix VII: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix IX: Comments from the U.S. Institute of Peace

Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, Godwin Agbara (Assistant  Director), Kathleen Monahan (Analyst-in-Charge), David Dayton, Martin  de Alteriis, Mark Dowling, Emily Gupta, and Jasmine Senior made key  contributions to this report. Additional assistance was provided by Michael  Fahy, Christopher Keblitis, Judith McCloskey, James Reynolds, Kira Self,  and Sarah Veale.

The United States has a national security interest in promoting stability in countries affected by violent conflict. We looked at how 3 federal agencies and an independent institute support conflict prevention, mitigation, and stabilization efforts, such as removing explosives hidden near homes.

Although these entities have worked together in Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria, the federal agencies have not documented their agreement on key areas of collaboration such as clarifying roles and responsibilities for stabilization efforts.

We recommended that they formally document their agreement on coordination for stabilization in written guidance.