BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Social Science Research Council (SSRC) - ECPv6.17.0//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://www.ssrc.org
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Social Science Research Council (SSRC)
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/New_York
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20240310T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20241103T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20250309T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20251102T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20260308T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20261101T060000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20250602
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20250603
DTSTAMP:20250529T170134Z
CREATED:20250303T192956Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250529T170134Z
UID:10000887-1748822400-1748908799@www.ssrc.org
SUMMARY:Re-Engineering Health Decision-Making Environments: Event Registration
DESCRIPTION:Event Details\nEvent Date: June 2\, 2025\nProgram: 8:45 am – 4:00 pm\nReception: 4:00 pm – 6:00 pm\nLocation: Hemmerdinger Hall\, Silver Center (100 Washington Square East)\, New York University \nOn June 2\, 2025\, the Social Science Research Council will convene leaders of pioneering research labs from across the country who are working in partnership with health providers to re-engineer provider and patient decision-making environments to improve health outcomes. Researchers will share emerging findings as well as high-value opportunities for decision-making interventions to improve patient health. The symposium will provide a roadmap for health research funders to help guide new investments in health decision-making research. \nWe welcome attendance from stakeholders dedicated to improving health outcomes\, including members of the research\, policy\, health provider\, and funder communities.  \nTo register\, please fill out the form below. For more information about the event\, please contact us at policyinnovation@ssrc.org. \nThis symposium is funded by the Robertson Foundation through the Collective to Strengthen Pathways for Health Research.
URL:https://www.ssrc.org/events/re-engineering-health-decision-making-environments-event-registration/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.ssrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/GettyImages-AB23035.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20250602
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20250603
DTSTAMP:20250520T184531Z
CREATED:20250430T185047Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250520T184531Z
UID:10000892-1748822400-1748908799@www.ssrc.org
SUMMARY:Re-Engineering Health Decision-Making Environments: Event Program
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.ssrc.org/events/program-re-engineering-health-decision-making-environments/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.ssrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/GettyImages-AB23035.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20250602
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20250603
DTSTAMP:20250520T194547Z
CREATED:20250303T175059Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250520T194547Z
UID:10000886-1748822400-1748908799@www.ssrc.org
SUMMARY:Re-Engineering Health Decision-Making Environments
DESCRIPTION:   June 2\, 2025\n   New York University\n\nInvestments in biomedical research have resulted in remarkably effective interventions with the potential to reduce mortality and disability. But many biomedical interventions are not being optimally deployed or adopted. The use of biomedical interventions is a function of decisions made by human beings\, interacting in decision-making environments that structure what information is freely available\, the costs and benefits of acquiring additional information and making alternative decisions\, and how easily we can learn from our past decisions. Many decision-making environments do not optimally leverage information\, incentives\, and learning to support provider and patient decisions that maximally improve patient health.  \nFurther\, there is systematic underinvestment in preventive and early-stage biomedical interventions\, due to the much longer clinical trials required to demonstrate efficacy\, resulting in significant life-years lost. The underinvestment in preventive biomedical interventions underscores the importance of developing effective decision-making interventions that encourage preventive behaviors. \nRecent technological advances are enabling the development of new decision assist tools that can help providers and patients make decisions that better support patient health\, including more effective deployment of biomedical interventions and increased adoption of preventive behaviors. These tools can help providers make more accurate diagnoses\, allocate higher-intensity care to those at greatest risk\, reduce the use of unnecessary treatments\, choose more affordable treatments\, and more effectively learn from prior cases. Decision assist tools can also provide patients with earlier warning signals about potential health risks and help patients adopt preventive behaviors.  \nOn June 2\, 2025\, the Social Science Research Council will convene leaders of pioneering research labs from across the country who are working in partnership with health providers to re-engineer provider and patient decision-making environments to improve health outcomes. Researchers will share emerging findings as well as high-value opportunities for decision-making interventions to improve patient health. The symposium will provide a roadmap for health research funders to help guide new investments in health decision-making research. \nWe welcome attendance from stakeholders dedicated to improving health outcomes\, including members of the research\, policy\, health provider\, and funder communities.  \nRegister to Attend \nParticipating Labs: \n\nBehavior Change for Good Initiative (BCFG)\, University of Pennsylvania \nCenter for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics (CHIBE)\, University of Pennsylvania\nCenter for Healthcare Innovation & Delivery Science (CHIDS)\, New York University\nCenter for Healthcare Marketplace Innovation (CHMI)\, University of California Berkeley\nJ-PAL US Health Care Delivery Initiative (HCDI)\, Massachusetts Institute of Technology\nNightingale Open Labs\, Massachusetts Institute of Technology\, University of California Berkeley\nUCLA Nudge Unit\, University of California Los Angeles\n\nThis symposium is funded by the Robertson Foundation through the Collective to Strengthen Pathways for Health Research.
URL:https://www.ssrc.org/events/re-engineering-health-decision-making-environments/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.ssrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/GettyImages-AB23035.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20250619
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20250620
DTSTAMP:20251014T144320Z
CREATED:20250701T195029Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251014T144320Z
UID:10000895-1750291200-1750377599@www.ssrc.org
SUMMARY:APN and Next Gen Panel on “Defending Democracy in Africa: Challenges and Options” Event Summary
DESCRIPTION:June 19\, 2025 \nThe SSRC’s APN and Next Gen program-sponsored panel\, “Defending Democracy in Africa: Challenges and Options\,” which was held virtually as part of the 2025 Lagos Studies Association (LSA) Conference\, featured five paper presentations. \nThe first paper presentation by Hakeem Onapajo\, panel Chair\, titled “Weak Institutions and Democratic Backsliding in Africa: A Study of the ‘Third Wave of Military Coups’ in West Africa\,” explored the recent coups in West Africa\, noting that they had largely been approached from external and geopolitical perspectives. Drawing on an institutional approach\, the presenter argued that institutional weaknesses\, or the dysfunctional nature of state institutions\, fueled instability and enabled coup makers who exploited democratic deficits to seize control of state power. The paper concluded by advocating for the strengthening of political institutions to forestall a complete breakdown of democracy in Africa. \nThe second paper presentation by Silidile Mlilo\, titled “Democratic Governance and Election Transitions in Botswana: A Case Study of the 2024 Elections and Its Implications for Africa’s Democracy\,” focused on recent developments in Botswana’s democratic experience following the peaceful rejection of the long-time dominant Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) by voters. The paper argued that long-term\, bottled-up grievances of Botswanan citizens over corruption\, unemployment\, and human right violations of successive BDP governments played a significant role in the defeat of the party in the 2024 elections. In contrast to other African states\, the outcome of Botswana’s recent elections signified democratic consolidation and the functionality of democratic institutions. \nThe third paper presentation by Dare Leke Idowu\, titled “Defending Democracy through Digital Activism: Challenges and Options for African Youths\,” captured the significance of digital activism in the new age of democracy on the continent. He showed how digital activism shaped youth activism and civil society engagement in democratic struggles in Africa. It was also observed that digital activism in Africa was being challenged by digital repression\, authoritarianism\, and the hijacking of digital spaces by certain forces\, as well as general political apathy. The presenter concluded by noting that African youths must continue to utilize digital activism to move away from the triggers and root causes of crises\, while also calling on youth activists to monitor modest gains by not getting carried away with the hype that comes with digital activism. \nThe fourth paper presentation by Alhassan Issah Suhuniyi\, titled “Alienation and Conflicts Among Agro-Pastoralist Communities in Ghana: Implications for Livelihoods and Peaceful Co-Existence\,” examined farmer-herders conflict as a phenomenon within the context of African democracies\, based on a case study of Ghana. He argued that one of the overlooked factors driving such conflicts was the exclusion of the herders from the democratic system. It was argued that pastoralists were denied freedom of expression\, movement\, and voting rights at both local and national levels. He therefore advocated for the inclusion of pastoralists in democratic processes as a strategy for promoting peaceful coexistence\, preventing and resolving conflicts in Africa. \nThe fifth and final presentation by Linnet Hamasi\, titled “Civil Society and the Protection of the Democratic Space in Africa: A Retrospective View from Kenya\,” explored the significance of civil society in the development of democracy in Africa\, with an emphasis on Kenya. Taking a historical approach\, the presenter argued that civil society had significantly shaped the trajectory of democracy in Kenya. This point is further illustrated by drawing on the case of current wave of protests by the “Gen Z” movement in Kenya\, in the context of struggling for the “third liberation” of Kenya. However\, the paper noted that this struggle faces serious changes\, such as the politicization of the religious space\, infiltration of the civil society by political elites\, and a high-handed state response against protesters. The presenter advocated for the empowerment of civil society to advance democratic development in Africa. \nThe discussion that followed acknowledged that political elites in Africa were undermining democratic institutions and processes on the continent\, by fueling poor governance\, violent conflict\, and instability. It was observed that African societies were vulnerable to military coups and other forms of political disruptions. To reverse this trend\, it was agreed that democratic institutions in Africa would need to be strengthened\, alongside youth and civil society\, to enable them to work towards consolidating democracy in Africa.
URL:https://www.ssrc.org/events/apn-and-next-gen-panel-on-defending-democracy-in-africa-challenges-and-options-event-summary/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.ssrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Defending-Democracy-in-Africa-scaled-e1751469574719.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20250623
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20250626
DTSTAMP:20250808T152548Z
CREATED:20250805T185210Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250808T152548Z
UID:10000899-1750636800-1750895999@www.ssrc.org
SUMMARY:Emerging Threats to Environmental Justice in Africa: Insights from SSRC’s APN and Next Gen Panel
DESCRIPTION:Held as part of the 2025 Academic Council on the United Nations System (ACUNS) Annual Meeting in Nairobi\, Kenya (June 23-25)\, the SSRC’s APN and Next Gen Program brought together six fellows to explore how environmental injustice is shaped by inequality\, climate change\, and conflict in various African contexts on a program-sponsored panel titled ‘Inequality\, Climate Change and Conflict: Emerging Challenges for Environmental Justice in Africa’. Framed within the broader ACUNS theme of “Environmental Multilateralism and Human Development\,” the panel session spotlighted African-led scholarship and grounded research findings across Uganda\, Zimbabwe\, Mozambique\, and Ghana\, highlighting the continent’s disproportionate vulnerability to climate-induced crises and offering pathways for more equitable and effective global\, regional\, and local responses. \nThe APN and Next Gen panel was chaired by Dr. Lilian Kong’ani (University of Cape Town\, South Africa) and featured presentations by: Dr. Alice Wabule (Cavendish University\, Uganda)\, Dr. Fadzai Chipato (Great Zimbabwe University\, Zimbabwe)\, Clemente Ntauzi (University of the Western Cape\, South Africa)\, Dr. Issah Suhyini Alhassan (University for Development Studies\, Ghana)\, and Dr. Louis Kusi Frimpong (University of Environment and Sustainable Development\, Ghana)\, who served as a panel discussant. \n \nThe panelists raised key themes bordering on environmental degradation\, vulnerable communities\, governance\, and social justice. \nPresentations and Reflections\n1. Resource Extraction and Community Vulnerability\nDr. Fadzai Chipato’s case study illustrated the intersection between lithium mining\, climate change mitigation\, inequality\, and conflict in the Bikita district\, Zimbabwe\, and how “strategic partnerships” with foreign firms often marginalize communities\, exacerbate environmental degradation\, and deepen social inequalities—especially for women. She asked\, “Can we call it a just transition if those at the helm of extraction are untouched by its harms?” Dr. Chipato’s study emphasized the need for meaningful inclusion of community voices in decision-making processes and holding organizations like the African Union accountable to avoid reproducing historical patterns of extractivism\, which reinforce the “resource curse” narrative and deepen local injustices. \nDr. Alice Wabule explored complex dimensions of devastation in Uganda\, including the loss of lives\, farmland\, and other properties\, internal displacement\, and distortions in social order\, while emphasizing the exacerbating social and economic inequalities caused by these occurrences. Dr. Wabule shared insights on the political exploitation of environmental disasters. In highland areas\, aid has been distributed not based on need\, but as political patronage. She called for a collaborative interrogation of short-term versus long-term responses to climate crises\, innovative research\, environmental justice\, and equity. \n2. Gendered Dimensions of Climate Adaptation\nClemente Ntauzi’s presentation on carbon sequestration in Mozambique revealed how “green” interventions can reinforce patriarchal structures. Women face land dispossession and exclusion from income-generating activities linked to carbon programs\, while local leaders are co-opted to enforce these changes. Ntauzi underscored the “importance of inclusive and context-specific interventions and strategies to ensure climate mitigation through carbon sequestration projects\, as well as the need to address socio-economic inequality in rural Mozambique by supporting people-centered strategies and resource governance practices and projects designed to foster food security\, higher incomes\, climate justice\, and sustainable development.” \nUsing a newly developed community-weighted vulnerability index and Tobit regression analysis\, Dr. Issah Suhyini Alhassan’s study found that environmental factors—more than institutional or socio-demographic ones—are the primary drivers of vulnerability. Through his research\, Dr. Alhassan examined livelihood vulnerability among households affected by the growing incidence of farmer-herder conflicts in Africa and highlighted that sedentary farmers and herders are the most exposed\, while transhumant herders are the most sensitive to conflict. The analysis also shows that conflict exposure and sensitivity contribute more to vulnerability than a lack of adaptive capacity. To promote environmental justice and peaceful coexistence\, he recommends policies that address exposure and sensitivity\, such as fair resource allocation\, stronger community resilience\, inclusive governance\, and improved trust in conflict-resolution institutions. \n3. Governance\, Participation\, and Justice\nAcross presentations\, the lack of proactive governance and accountability mechanisms emerged as a critical concern. Dr. Louis Kusi Frimpong emphasized the absence of disaster preparedness and meaningful stakeholder engagement as root causes of exploitation and marginalization. “Who is protecting the rights of local communities?” he asked while calling for a dismantling of current social structures and weak local leadership. \nDr. Lilian Kong’ani posed a closing question to the group: How can we better integrate local participation in environmental governance? Panelists advised that many communities are unaware of their right to engage\, highlighting a crucial gap in civic awareness and institutional responsiveness. \n  \nRecommendations: Advancing Environmental Justice Through Inclusive Governance\, Local Empowerment\, and Regional Accountability\n\nStrengthen Regulatory and Accountability Mechanisms\nGovernments and regional institutions must develop clear frameworks to monitor corporate practices\, particularly in resource extraction.\nPrioritize Community Engagement\nLocal voices must be included from the design to the implementation stage of environmental and adaptation projects.\nInvest in Civic Education\nExpand awareness at the community level about rights\, environmental governance\, and how to engage with local and national institutions.\nLeverage African Institutions\nInstitutions like the African Union and ECOWAS must be held accountable to ensure equity in environmental transitions.\nSupport Contextual\, Interdisciplinary Research\nContinued funding for African scholars is critical to understanding and solving region-specific environmental justice issues.\n\n \nWhen the panelists were asked to reflect on reforms that are most urgently needed within the United Nations and the broader international community to remain relevant and responsive to challenges of violent conflict\, poverty\, and climate change\, especially from an African perspective and in connection to your research\, they proposed the following calls to action. \nA Call for Action to the United Nations and International Community \n\nAmplify African Representation in Global Governance\nPush for African leadership and participation in the UN and global institutions\, ensuring African voices shape international policies and decisions.\n\n\nReform Global Frameworks for Equity and Inclusion\nDemocratize climate and peacebuilding systems to reflect local contexts\, with strong inclusion of women\, youth\, and marginalized communities.\n\n\nCenter for Indigenous and Community-Based Solutions\nElevate traditional knowledge and locally rooted practices to tackle conflict\, poverty\, and climate issues effectively.\n\n\nAdopt Integrated\, Systems-Based Approaches\nAddress the interconnectedness of global challenges\, such as climate\, conflict\, and poverty\, by breaking down policy silos (e.g.\, SDGs\, Agenda 2063).\n\n\nSupport Locally Led\, Co-Designed Solutions\nPromote participatory approaches that treat local actors as partners\, with investment in local capacity and alignment with African realities.\n\n\nThe APN and Next Gen program is funded by Carnegie Corporation of New York.\n 
URL:https://www.ssrc.org/events/emerging-threats-to-environmental-justice-in-africa-insights-from-ssrcs-apn-and-next-gen-panel/
CATEGORIES:Africa
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.ssrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/ACUNS.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20250625
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20250629
DTSTAMP:20250723T220552Z
CREATED:20250723T152102Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250723T220552Z
UID:10000898-1750809600-1751155199@www.ssrc.org
SUMMARY:APN and Next Gen-Sponsored Panel at the 2025 ECAS Conference: Prague\, Czech Republic
DESCRIPTION:The Social Science Research Council’s African Peacebuilding Network (APN) and the Next Generation Social Sciences in Africa (Next Gen) program sponsored a panel of current and former fellows\, on the topic\, “Changing Geopolitics\, Violence\, and Conflict Resolution in Africa: Emerging Challenges and Prospects for Peace\,” featuring presentations based on the fellows’ program-supported projects. The panel was held during the European Conference on African Studies (ECAS)\, Prague\, Czech Republic\, from June 25 to 28\, 2025. \nThe panel addressed how changing global and regional geopolitics\, involving the complex interplay of domestic and external actors\, is impacting and shaping the trajectories of violent conflict in Africa\, including its ramifications for conflict resolution and peacebuilding on the continent. The paper presenters each used specific thematic case studies to identify and analyze how the activities of established Western Powers and Russia\, and emerging ones like China\, India\, Turkey\, Russia\, Saudi Arabia\, among others\, are redefining the geographies and trajectories of violent conflict in Africa\, including the emergence of new non-state and trans-state and trans-regional conflict actors. The papers address how the geopolitical trends pose formidable challenges to conflict resolution and peacebuilding norms and mechanisms in Africa. They also unpack how changing geopolitics and conflict dynamics are undermining democratic and welfare gains of the people\, regional peace and security architectures in Africa. \nIn the first presentation\, “Division and Uncertainty in West Africa: The Alliance of Sahel States and the Implications for Regional Security and Peacebuilding\,” Dr. Ibrahim Bangura (Associate Professor\, Fourth Bay College\, University of Sierra Leone\, Freetown\, Sierra Leone / APN IRG 2016) explored the formation of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) by Burkina Faso\, Mali\, and Niger\, in September 2023\, followed by the exit of the three states from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)\, the termination of military cooperation with France and the US\, and the forging of a closer military partnership with Russia. Dr. Bangura theorized that the AES\, established as a mutual defense pact against perceived external aggression and internal threats\, represented a major geopolitical shift in West Africa. This realignment\, he argued\, posed fundamental challenges to the legitimacy of ECOWAS and regional stability in West Africa. \nDr. Sebastian Paalo (Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology\, Kumasi\, Ghana / APN IRF 2024)\, in the second presentation\, “Changing geopolitics\, multipolarity\, and local ownership of peacebuilding in Africa\,” examined how global power shifts impact peacebuilding on the continent. Dr. Paalo asserted that a “local turn” in peacebuilding involves local leadership and resources\, which have gained prominence since the 1990s. He noted that Africa’s geopolitical landscape\, shaped by colonialism and post-Cold War era dynamics\, continues to drive conflicts defined by proxy wars and instability driven by a lack of resources. Dr. Paalo also critiqued the limitations of the “liberal peace” paradigm; instead\, he advocated for a hybrid peace that combines customary practices and traditional dispute resolution mechanisms\, including key roles for women and youth. \n \nThe third presentation\, “The Securitisation of Migration: Consequences of EU Externalization Policies on Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding in Africa\,” saw Silindile Nanzile Mlilo (Project Manager and Doctoral Researcher\, African Centre for Migration & Society\, University of Witwatersrand\, Johannesburg\, South Africa / Next Gen Completion 2024) analyzing how the European Union’s (EU) externalization policies continues to impact conflict resolution and peacebuilding across Africa. Mlilo argued that EU policies\, which prioritize preventing migration while neglecting its root causes (conflict\, poverty\, poor governance\, etc.)\, often worsen the local tensions between migrants and the host communities. She critiqued dominant Eurocentric narratives of migration that tend to securitize the concept of mobility. She instead proposed prioritizing African perspectives\, highlighting the unintended consequences of these policies\, including human rights violations\, corruption\, and the destabilization of regional mobility frameworks such as ECOWAS. \nContinuing the theme of Africa’s relations with emerging powers\, Kgomotso Komane (Assistant Lecturer\, University of Pretoria\, Pretoria\, South Africa / Next Gen Research 2024) delivered the fourth presentation\, on “Africa-China Relations: Commitments and Complexities to Peace and Development in Southern Africa.” Her presentation explored the dynamics of China’s engagement with Southern Africa\, through a decolonial lens\, and against the background of the impact of Western colonial legacies on regional development and stability in Southern Africa. Komane discussed how China’s economic growth and cooperation\, while supposedly contributing towards peace and poverty relief\, were heavily contributing to conflict in the region\, especially in countries like Lesotho\, Mozambique\, and Zambia. She further emphasized that Africa’s challenges with positive development—economic\, social\, infrastructure\, etc—are rooted in historical “overlapping epochs” of global imperialism and colonial power structures\, which continue to lead to political instability\, human rights violations\, and a lack of development on the continent. She challenged traditional\, Western-based narratives of international relations in Africa by drawing on a case study of the ongoing insurgency in Cabo Delgado\, Mozambique\, and Lesotho’s constant political turmoil. \nThe fifth and last presentation at the panel was by Tamia Botes (PhD Candidate\, University of Witwatersrand\, Johannesburg\, South Africa / Next Gen Research 2024) on “Geographies of Resistance: Eldorado Park and the Quest for Peace and Justice in African Urban Conflicts.” Botes explored Eldorado Park\, a “Colored” township on the outskirts of Johannesburg\, as a prominent example of how local violence is not necessarily separated from larger geopolitical forces caught up in African urban conflicts. She explained how the apartheid state’s spatial and racial engineering of Eldorado Park\, a site of systemic neglect and exclusion\, was linked to global and ideological currents\, along with Cold War geopolitics that either implicitly condoned or actively supported racial segregation in Southern Africa. Botes further asserted that post-apartheid South Africa’s transition to democracy\, dominated by neoliberal economic policies\, worsened the existing socio-economic divide and exacerbated inequality not just locally but also by integrating the continent into global capitalist structures\, marginalizing communities like Eldorado Park\, and feeding the cycle of structural violence. As a contrast to these neoliberal ideas of what peacebuilding on the continent should look like\, Botes introduced the huis-hospitaal (house hospital) as a framework for genuine care\, examining how local acts of resistance challenge systemic violence by providing alternative avenues for peacebuilding. She highlighted how these informal birthing centers\, run by generations of Black women midwives\, embodied a form of feminist peacebuilding rooted in collective care\, knowledge\, and a refusal to abandon one another amidst racial-sexual violence and state neglect. \nAfter the conclusion of the panel presentations\, a Question-and-Answer session followed between the panelists and the audience. Audience members raised questions about the concepts of ownership and local peacebuilding\, the dependent nature of certain geopolitical relations\, and peacebuilding and reintegration efforts within ECOWAS. \nOne participant asked Dr. Paalo his thoughts on the possibly problematic\, continuous focus on “ownership” as a concept when discussing local peacebuilding in Africa\, comparing it to outdated frameworks such as the 2005 Paris Agenda. In response\, Dr. Paalo acknowledged the need to reconceptualize ownership in a multipolar world and shifting toward questions of “access” and “entry points.” \nAnother participant also asked Komane if Chinese-funded infrastructure projects\, focused on economic involvement and progress\, could be seen as a form of peacebuilding due to their contribution to development. While Silindile acknowledged this point\, she challenged this notion by pointing out the dependent nature of this type of engagement creates between Africa and China\, particularly when local firms become reliant on Chinese financing; noting essentially\, such a power dynamic complicated any notion of peacebuilding. \nFinally\, Dr. Bangura was asked his thoughts on the potential for the reintegration of countries like Mali\, Burkina Faso\, and Niger into ECOWAS. Dr. Bangura stressed that any reintegration would depend on democratic transitions and that the present instability in the region is ultimately rooted in longstanding struggles over power and resources. He also linked this to the presence of violent extremist groups in the region. Still\, he expressed confidence that a renewed momentum for democracy would soon emerge and believed that Mali and Niger would lead such a democratic transition. Prof. Bangura also asserted that when these countries successfully democratize\, the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) would be unsustainable. \nThe panel presentations and the discussions that followed them inspired thought-provoking ideas on the changing geopolitics in Africa and the challenges to\, as well as the potential for\, peace. It demonstrated how the APN and Next Gen-sponsored panel of African scholars engaged with essential research questions and facilitated a meaningful conversation on emerging challenges to African peacebuilding.
URL:https://www.ssrc.org/events/apn-and-next-gen-sponsored-panel-at-the-2025-ecas-conference-prague-czech-republic/
CATEGORIES:Africa
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.ssrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/P1060548-Edited-scaled.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20250627
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20250629
DTSTAMP:20250808T152600Z
CREATED:20250805T190327Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250808T152600Z
UID:10000900-1750982400-1751155199@www.ssrc.org
SUMMARY:Charting a Path to Stability: SSRC–IPSS Dialogue on Political Transitions in the Horn of Africa
DESCRIPTION:The Social Science Research Council’s (SSRC) African Peacebuilding Network and Next Generation Social Sciences in Africa (APN and Next Gen) program\, in collaboration with the Institute for Peace and Security Studies (IPSS) of Addis Ababa University\, co-hosted a high-level policy dialogue titled “Challenges to Political Transitions and Strategies for Regional Peace and Stability in the Horn of Africa\,” held in Addis Ababa\, Ethiopia from June 27–28\, 2025. \nThe dialogue convened senior policymakers\, African Union (AU) and Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) representatives\, including H.E. Amb. Mohamed Ibn Chambas\, civil society actors\, scholars (including SSRC’s APN and Next Gen fellows)\, and diplomats for timely discussions on political transitions\, governance\, peace\, and regional cooperation in the Horn of Africa\, including Djibouti\, Ethiopia\, Eritrea\, Kenya\, Somalia\, South Sudan\, Sudan\, and Uganda. \n  \nThe convening commenced with opening remarks from the APN and Next Gen Program Director\, Dr. Cyril Obi\, and Addis Ababa University’s Interim Head of the Center for Peace and Security Studies\, Dr. Fana Gebresenbet\, urging scholars and participants to approach the challenges facing the region through collaboration aimed at producing research-driven policy options. \n \nH.E. Ambassador Dr. Mohamed Ibn Chambas (AU High Representative for Silencing the Guns) delivered a keynote address exploring the political challenges in the Horn of Africa and their similarities to the broader continent. H.E. Chambas spotlighted Sudan’s political unraveling—driven by militarization\, exclusionary governance\, and identity-based fractures—as emblematic of the broader instability in the Horn of Africa. He emphasized that these issues are not unique to Sudan but are reflected across the region\, including Eritrea\, where militarized politics and external influences remain key destabilizing forces. He urged participants to think through and adopt African-led\, inclusive approaches that prioritize learning from past experiences\, empowering civilian institutions\, and addressing emerging challenges through initiatives like Silencing the Guns. \n  \nDiscussion themes and outcomes \n\nPolitical Transitions\, Identity\, and Governance Deficits\nSpeakers explored the persistence of authoritarianism\, elite capture of political processes\, and structural marginalization. Discussions emphasized that identity politics continue to fuel ethno-regional tensions across Sudan\, South Sudan\, Somalia\, and Ethiopia. Participants argued that transitions should be viewed as ongoing movements rather than single events\, and underscored the need for inclusive\, civilian-led democratic institutions.\nRegional and Transnational Drivers of Conflict\nPanelists noted that many conflicts in the Horn of Africa are interlinked\, with insurgent movements and governance failures crossing borders. Examples from Somalia\, South Sudan\, and Eritrea illustrated how militarization and historically colonial-era frameworks deepened instability. Several speakers warned of the complicity of external actors and called for coordinated regional frameworks to manage transnational influences.\nCommunity-Level Reconciliation and the Role of Grassroots Actors\nLocal leaders\, traditional authorities\, and women play critical but under-supported roles in peacebuilding. Participants highlighted the need to embed grassroots actors in decision-making\, not just implementation. Climate change\, resource scarcity\, and shifting gender roles were identified as new drivers of local conflict and opportunities for innovation.\nRegional Organizations and the Silencing the Guns Agenda\nThis session addressed the institutional strengths and weaknesses of the AU\, IGAD\, and other sub-regional bodies. Panelists stressed that the AU’s effectiveness is limited by the political will of its member states. There was a call for moving beyond norm-setting towards enforcement and implementation. Practical recommendations included enhancing civic education\, expanding the “Silencing the Guns” framework to vulnerable populations\, and increasing coordination among regional blocs.\n\n   \n\nKey Takeaways \n\nEstablish inclusive governance and address structural inequalities in the Horn of Africa. Political transitions require sustained and inclusive engagement\, not episodic reforms.\nEthnic and identity-based contestations must be addressed through national dialogue and constitutional reform.\nCivil Society Organizations (CSOs)\, grassroots actors\, and youth networks must be integrated into formal peace mechanisms.\nThe AU and IGAD need to strengthen implementation\, not just develop policy.\nExternal interventions should be aligned with African-led priorities and avoid entrenching power imbalances.\n\nFrom Dialogue to Action\nThe policy dialogue highlighted the urgency of reimagining governance and regional cooperation. Scholars advocated for a shift toward transnational frameworks and knowledge-based policymaking. Reflections underscored systemic challenges\, including a lack of legitimacy\, the militarization of the state\, elite domination\, and fragmented civic spaces. \nThere was consensus on the need to anchor peace in grassroots realities\, use localized approaches to Silencing the Guns\, and foster long-term regional integration. The importance of pragmatic institutional design\, civic education\, and inclusive data frameworks was repeatedly underscored. \nThe APN and Next Gen program is funded by Carnegie Corporation of New York.
URL:https://www.ssrc.org/events/charting-a-path-to-stability-ssrc-ipss-dialogue-on-political-transitions-in-the-horn-of-africa/
CATEGORIES:Africa
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.ssrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/image001.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR