Some source drafts propose a symbolic and institutional centerpiece for reconstruction: a “peace-build campus” model with high-visibility governance and moral patronage (e.g., UNESCO/Holy See).
In this GitBook, this is treated as an optional governance model, not a required component.
The value of this module—if used—is to create:
a recognizable “hub” for coordination and transparency,
a reputational anchor for anti-corruption norms,
a high-visibility venue for competitions, standards, and public reporting.
What This Model Is (Mechanism Description)
A peace-build campus model typically includes:
a dedicated coordinating entity (foundation/authority) with a narrow mandate,
a public-facing transparency and reporting center,
a convening platform for donors, contractors, and civil society,
a governance structure designed to resist capture through external oversight and reputational constraints.
Why Consider It?
Potential Benefits:
Raises the reputational cost of corruption and capture.
Provides a stable coordination locus across political transitions.
Creates a visible institutional “home” for Reconstruction Olympics scoring, audits, and standards.
Can improve donor confidence by signaling governance seriousness.
Potential Risks:
Over-symbolization (appearance over function).
Political contestation of patronage institutions.
Governance complexity and jurisdictional conflict.
Distraction from core procurement and delivery capacity.
Design Requirements (Must-Have Properties)
If implemented, it should have:
1. Narrow, Auditable Mandate
Coordination, transparency, standards, and oversight support.
Not a substitute for domestic governance.
Clearly bounded decision rights.
2. Independent Oversight
Multi-party board composition.
Rotating terms and strict conflict-of-interest rules.
Independent audit and inspector general functions.
3. Transparency by Default
Project and funding dashboards.
Audit summaries and debarment lists.
Published scoring and methods for Reconstruction Olympics.
4. Legal Clarity
Clearly defined legal status (foundation/authority/compact).
Procurement and contracting compatibility.
Data governance and privacy compliance.
Implementation Options
Option A: Symbolic Convening + Transparency Hub
Primarily a coordination and reporting venue.
Low interference with procurement decisions.
Lowest political and legal complexity.
Option B: Standards-Setting and Audit Coordination Entity
Sets procurement standards and publishes integrity scorecards.
Coordinates independent audits and inspections.
Moderate complexity.
Option C: Program Operator for Specific Components
Runs Reconstruction Olympics competitions and verification programs.
Higher complexity; higher capture risk if poorly governed.
If this model is adopted, include a short “why this helps” rationale and an explicit “what it does not do” section to prevent misunderstanding. Record the choice in the Decision Log.
