Hopes remain high in Myanmar that a nationwide ceasefire will soon pave the way for political dialogue focused on accommodating ethnic diversity in this hugely complex state. Taking stock of where we are now with the peace process is a “lessons learned” report released last week by the Myanmar Peace Support Initiative. MPSI is led by Charles Petrie, former UN resident and humanitarian coordinator. Ashley South acts as consultant. Its evaluation covers two years since March 2012, when the Norwegian government responded to a request from the Myanmar government to support the peace process, and MPSI came into being.

This is a dense report running to 46 pages of executive summary and main findings, plus another 46 pages of annexes. It’s not for the faint-hearted. For anyone interested in figuring out the peace process from somewhere close to the inside, though, it’s a must-read. Formally, it surveys MPSI activity in helping to build trust and confidence in ceasefires, testing the robustness of agreements, and strengthening local and international coordination of peace process support mechanisms. Informally, it opens a window onto a much larger understanding of the evolving peace agenda.

In the past two years, MPSI has worked in five states (Chin, Kayah, Kayin, Mon, Shan) and two regions (Bago, Tanintharyi) with comprehensive sets of stakeholders, including seven ethnic armed groups. What has it learned? There is much solid information in the report. Ethnic armed groups are increasingly proactive and creative in engaging with the peace process. Women are under-represented. Although real progress has been made, the full process may well extend until 2020. Major problems, for instance in Rakhine State, could still disrupt everything. Above all, for peripheral communities long scarred by conflict, life is improving in tangible ways as displaced families begin to return to their villages, identity cards become more readily available, opportunities for dialogue open up, and everyday existence becomes somewhat safer and more prosperous.

Equally useful is the overall argument advanced in the report, which at base addresses the role of external agents. There are many important tips. Context is key. Consultation must be meaningful. Flexibility is essential. Local capacity must be acknowledged and reinforced. Engagement in the peace process must be broad. Coordination and funding should have a practical orientation. An inclusive national peace process is the ultimate goal. However, the essence of the argument resides in a single sentence: “Fundamentally the peace process is indigenous to Myanmar, locally owned and led, with limited roles for international intervention.” This core MPSI lesson of course has far wider application.