Peace and Conflict Studies - Spring 2014

Peace and Conflict Studies Volume 21, Number 1 27 absence of structural violence and the conditions for war) and highlighted the importance of local knowledge and participation. Another key scholar in the field, John Paul Lederach (1997), expanded our understanding of the concept. He sees peacebuilding as a dynamic social process and introduced the term conflict transformation which he defines as an “ongoing process of change from negative to positive relations, behaviour, attitudes and structures” (1997, p. 20). Key to this process are relationships: “Cultivating an ‘infrastructure for peacebuilding’ means that “we are not merely interested in ‘ending’ something that is not desired. We are oriented toward the building of relationships that in their totality form new patterns, processes, and structures” (1997, pp. 84-85). Education for peacebuilding is therefore oriented towards the transformation of the structural conditions and social relations that generate violent conflict. This may include the role that access to education can play in addressing group inequalities, the importance of education sector reform in encouraging new forms of power relations and the potential for education to support transformation processes related to security sector reform, political institutions, economic regeneration and social development (Smith, 2011). The recent UNESCO Global Monitoring Report (2011) calls for an increased role for education in peacebuilding and, in particular, for the resources available through the United Nations Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) to be increased to between $500 million and $1 billion a year. Whilst the report argues for early engagement and prioritization of education throughout all conflict phases, there is no critical analysis of the way in which non-formal education, particularly for youth, can contribute to these processes. Why Prioritise Youth? The definition of “youth” is highly contested and there is a lot of variation in the age ranges used by international organisations. The United Nations (UN) defines those aged between 15 and 24 as youth; this is the most common age range used, and is advocated by the UN Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), the World Bank, the UN Development Programme (UNDP), and the International Youth Foundation. However, defining youth in terms of chronological age is arguably even less appropriate in conflict situations than elsewhere. Youth are often thrust into adult roles earlier than would otherwise be the case in times of peace. They may, for example, find themselves heading households in the event of parental death and displacement. Conflict also causes difficulties for the socio-cultural definition of youth since the traditional markers of the transition into adulthood are often disrupted. A more appropriate way of understanding youth is as a transitional stage in life