Introduction

While the number of guidance notes on peace mediation (UN, 2012) and types of mediation support actors (Mason and Sguaitamatti, 2011) has grown in the past, the institutional capacity of the UN and other regional organizations to provide ‘effective support’ has been relatively limited (Whitfield, 2015). The establishment of mediation support mechanisms gained momentum only in the past 15 years, most notably with the establishment of the UN Mediation Support Unit (MSU) in 2006. The UN MSU's establishment ‘led to the rapid understanding of the utility of a standing support structure for good offices, conflict prevention and mediation efforts of an envoy’ (Whitfield, 2015) and inspired other international organizations to create or revitalize their own mediation structures, including the European Union (EU) Mediation Support Team, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Conflict Prevention Centre, the various mediation support structures of African sub-regional organizations, and the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council, among other examples.

Among the many challenges for developing effective mediation and mediation support, three are relevant for this chapter. The first challenge is that the multiple mediation support efforts by international organizations, states and international NGOs have resulted in a ‘crowded field’ characterized by overlaps, uncoordinated action and competition (Lanz and Gasser, 2013). In addition to the UN, continental and regional organizations have emerged as dominant mediating actors. To address this particular challenge, mediation structures of these actors have strengthened cooperation in knowledge management, training, and networking in mediation (following the categorization of mediation support of Lehmann-Larsen, 2014).

The second challenge is that despite the growth of these institutionalized mediation structures and principles of coordination among them, the fundamental decision of whether and when to mediate in an actual conflict remains a political decision by the organization's member states and outside the purview of the secretariat and technical experts that build up mediation support institutional capacities. Partnership efforts to streamline and integrate efforts of MSUs are centred on the coordination of technical assets once a mediation mission has been mandated, but not coordination in deciding on such mandates. As Nathan observes, ‘partnerships are being built between the organization's secretariats and not at the vastly more important level of the member states’ decisionmaking bodies’ (Nathan, 2017: 160).