Biennial Report 2011-2012

Peace and Development

FriEnt

Imprint© Working Group on Peace and Development (FriEnt)Dahlmannstraße 453113 Bonn

Tel. +49 228 535 3259Fax +49 228 535 3799

info@frient.dewww.frient.de/enwww.twitter.de/FriEnt_news

Editors: Marc Baxmann, Natascha Zupan (V.i.S.d.P.) Assistant: Laura Sahm

Authors: Marc Baxmann, Anja Justen, Caroline Kruckow, Christine Meissler, Marius Müller-Hennig, Bodo Schulze, Sylvia Servaes, Angelika Spelten, Natascha Zupan

Translation: Hillary Crowe Layout: Claudia OlyImage editing: picture worx / Monika Bergmann Printing: dieUmweltDruckerei GmbH Carbon neutral printed on 100% recycled paper Number of copies: 500

Cover: Mancala – a complex strategy game, Gary Grossman/flickrPicture Credits p. 2-3: Thomas Ecke/photothek (3x), Sven Reuter, Sandra Then

Disclaimer:The articles do not necessarily represent the opinion of the FriEnt member organisations.

Bonn, September 2013

The Working Group on Peace and Development (FriEnt) is an association of governmental organisations, church develop-ment agencies, civil society networks, and political founda-tions. FriEnt aims to pool capacities, support networking and cooperation, and contribute to conflict-sensitive development cooperation.

FriEnt‘s members are committed to working together to promote a range of approaches and highlight the potential of development-oriented peace work to policy-makers and the public at large. They are united by their great commitment to peace and development. They vary, however, in their size, mandate, international partners, projects and approaches. FriEnt‘s members aim to utilise their diverse perspectives and experience as an asset for their shared productive work on peacebuilding in the context of development cooperation.

FriEnt is a Working Group of: Bread for the World – Protestant Development Service | Center for International Peace Operations (ZIF) | Civil Peace Service Group | Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH | Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) | Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES) | Heinrich-Böll-Foundation (hbs) | Misereor/Catholic Central Agency for Development Aid | Platform for Peaceful Conflict Management/Institute for Development and Peace (INEF)

1

Contents

2 | Preface: A shared space for peace and development 3 | Editorial: Peace work as serendipity?

Support ing change

4 | Transitions in the long shadow of violence 6 | The Arab world in transition: the key role of civil society 8 | A quiet companion: the UN and social change 10 | Conflicts in the South Caucasus: between progress and stagnation 11 | Preventing violence in times of transition

Increas ing impact

12 | As complex as reality: impact assessment in peacebuilding 14 | Conflict and fragility: challenges for development effectiveness 16 | Capacity development for conflict transformation 17 | Transitional justice and development: joining forces for more effectiveness

Anchor ing peace

18 | Development for peace: an eventful career – a promising future? 20 | Education: an ambivalent but key role for development and peace 22 | Land as a peace resource? Human rights and conflict resolution in focus 23 | Colombia: hopes for more peace and justice

24 | Communications: diversity under the spotlight 25 | FriEnt Structure

Contents

2

A shared space for peace and development

• Through their involvement with FriEnt – and particularly through their diversity – the members enhance the status and visibility of the policy field as a whole.

• FriEnt facilitates the development of new ideas and the exchange of experience. In this way, it makes valuable contributions to the conceptual development of conflict prevention and peacebuilding.

• FriEnt is a point of contact, not only for its members, on all issues relating to the development-peacebuilding nexus.

• FriEnt is building bridges between peace and develop-ment, between state and civil society, and between scholars and practitioners.

• In increasingly complex conflict situations, it is essential to work collaboratively at several levels simultaneously. FriEnt establishes the basis for this process through its networking.

• FriEnt creates space for different perspectives from the partner countries to feed into the dialogue.

However, we don’t want to hide away in this shared space. On the contrary, peacebuilding is a deeply cooperative and interdisciplinary enterprise and must link in with other areas of work, such as democracy promotion, human rights, health, education, and economic and rural development. Together, we are determined to overcome silo thinking and engage in dialogue with a range of actors.

Berlin, July 2013

Christine Toetzke, Dr Wolfgang Heinrich, BMZ Bread for the WorldChairs of the FriEnt Steering Committee

Dear readers,

Civil society organisations are under pressure in many countries. Their political space is shrinking by government policies and actions – especially in fragile and conflict affected countries. And yet they have a key role to play in addressing the immense challenges facing us in the field of peacebuilding and conflict prevention. In complex conflict situations, there are no standard solutions that fit together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Instead, more flexibility and cooperation are required. Individual action must be coupled with measures at a broader societal level. Social conflicts cannot be ignored in political processes. The state’s responsi-bility to protect its citizens must be developed, along with spaces for civil society action. This is the only way to build or restore trust between state and society – a key building block for peace and development.

Building constructive state-society relations is a key prerequi-site for peace and development – and not only in fragile and conflict affected states. In our own area of work, too, trustful cooperation between the state and civil society is the foundation of effective action. But trust also means allowing scope for disagreement and criticism. The Working Group offers us plenty of dialogue spaces here. Personal discussions in FriEnt’s Steering Committee can be just as important as dialogue among experts at one of FriEnt’s many events.

So we see our Working Group as our shared space for peace and development. What does this mean for us in practice? Here are some answers:

Preface

3

Peace work as serendipity?

long and rocky road, as the “Arab Spring” countries and others show.

“Supporting change”, “Increasing impact”, “Anchoring peace”: these are the topics of our Biennial Report 2011-2012, which analyses these trends and discuss them from a variety of perspectives.

Slowly but surely, there is a growing recognition that in complex conflict and post-conflict settings, we will not progress with linear thinking. Peace work is not all about serendipity – rather are systematic, long-term cooperative approaches needed. In this context, peacebuilding cannot be viewed in isolation. But what does this awareness mean in terms of supporting transition processes, for the monitoring and assessment of impacts, and for the work in key develop-ment sectors? These questions run like a red thread through our Biennial Report 2011-2012. At the same time, challen-ging conventional peacebuilding paradigms is crucial, in dialogue with partners. Their views and expertise play a key role in ensuring the success of conflict prevention and peacebuilding. That’s why our members and partners share their experience, describe challenges and offer insights into their work in this Report. Thank you to each and every one of them!

The FriEnt Team wishes you an enjoyable read!

Natascha Zupan Marc BaxmannHead of the FriEnt Team Communication

Dear readers,

It’s been an eventful two years for the FriEnt team. 2011 was dominated by the various activities to mark our 10th anniver-sary, while 2012 was a chance for us to focus on the challen-ges identified and analyse current trends. At the international level, in particular, there has been a strong move towards linkage between peace and development over the past two years. The World Bank’s World Development Report 2011 and the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States are simply the most striking examples. And there is well-founded hope that the post-2015 agenda will also include the peace dimension.

These developments were reflected in our priorities over the past two years. Our 10th anniversary, for example, focused on the potential of key development sectors for peacebuilding and conflict prevention. The fact is that the causes of conflict often lie in inequitable access to economic resources and social services. Together with our members, we therefore looked more closely at the peacebuilding potential of education, health and land.

Apropos impact: the “impact” debate has not passed us by. What are the impacts that we are trying to achieve, and how do we want to achieve them? Where do our limits lie? Our team and members are currently exploring this issue in a joint process. In thematic terms, we have focused on the specific challenges associated with monitoring and assessing impact in peacebuilding and the international development effectiveness discourse. But learning is one aspect: action is quite another. Social and political transformation can be a

Editor ia l

4

Support ing change

In August 2011, Nepal’s new Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, a former Maoist rebel leader, unveiled an ambitious action programme which envisaged the drafting of a new constitution, the integration of ex-rebels into the armed forces, amnesties and the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission – all within 45 days. As so often happens, however, this initiative became bogged down in endless party-political wrangling and factional infighting. The hopes of more political participation, equality and economic prospects for many more people are likely to remain unfulfilled for some time, despite the peace agree-ment. And yet the end of violence or authoritarian rule offers the opportunity for a new beginning. This “zero hour” is surely predestined for comprehensive political reforms and social change.

In reality, however, “zero hour” rarely exists. War destroys infrastructure, as well as trust and human values as the basis

for social cohesion, but the essence of the country, with a centre and a neglected periphery, social hierarchies and gender roles, remains. A particular challenge is the continuity of elites on all sides of the conflict: whether in Nepal, Aceh, South Sudan, Northern Ireland or Macedonia, in recent years, armed resistance movements managed to lever their representatives into government through negotiations and peace processes. As the new political elite, they either enter into coalitions with the old elites and former adversaries, or take over the reins of government alone.

Legacies of violence as a core challenge for conflict transformation

The old rationales that determine people’s behaviour do not disappear overnight, however. As legacies of violence, they contain many inherent risks to political and social change.

Supporting change

Transitions in the long shadow of violence

Change is rarely conflict-free. This applies to small steps forward in the development process as much as to major social and political transitions. Power relations shift and new elites and ideas emerge, but there are also reactionary forces. It is not only the Arab world which is changing; in South Caucasus, too, some movement can be discerned at the societal level despite the stalled political negotiations. In Kenya and Nepal, on the other hand, political reforms pose major challenges. Despite all the diversity of these processes, a key issue for FriEnt over the last two years was how external actors can provide constructive support for complex change processes.

5

FriEnt Activities

FriEnt devises ways of providing constructive support for complex transition processes. This issue was discussed at the following events:

The role of business in Nepal’s peace process (March 2011)

Party proliferation and the constitutional process in Nepal (September 2011)

Legacies of violence and the work with “new” elites in post- conflict settings (June 2012)

Social change in Nepal: Potential partners and approaches (October 2012)

Going to the polls: a Moroccan voter in Agadir. Photo: Vesna Middelkoop Photo below: Jonathan Stutz/Fotolia.com

Support ing change

• Transform military structures and patronage systems: Military command structures continue to exist even after the signing of peace agreements. Initially, these structures appear to have a stabilising effect, but it is essential to reduce their influence in the medium to long term. The same applies to patronage systems as well. However, these are very much more complex and are often impenetrable to outsiders. As the legacy of the war economy, they are characterised by vested interests, loyalties and links to organised crime. It is essential to support processes which enable former resis-tance movements to see the state not as “loot” but as an asset to be protected for the common good.

• Take a holistic view: It goes without saying that most legacies of violence – democratic deficits, dealing with past human rights abuses and atrocities, the war economy and patronage systems – relate not only to former armed resistance movements but also to old elites.

• Donor coordination remains key: Donor coordination and a division of labour are very important in the cooperation with new elites due to the complex context, the limited capac- ities of former rebels, and the fact that timing is a sensitive issue.

“Credibility and transparency are essential” Interview with Dr Sina Schüssler, German Platform for Peaceful Conflict Management

What’s important, from the Platform’s perspective, when supporting transition processes?We want to show that peace in other countries has to do with us and that we can make a contribution here in Germany. That’s why we critically monitor German foreign policy and advocate for responsible migration, arms export and environ- mental policies. As a Platform, we give smaller organisations a voice and can lend weight to peace policy positions that are developed on a joint basis.

The Platform’s last annual meeting looked at these issues in terms of the “logic of peace”, but also discussed the challenges facing practitioners at the local level. What conclusions did you draw?It is apparent that credibility and transparency are key pre- requisites for supporting local change processes. The majority of our members are engaged in civil society capacity building – in other words, “peace from below”. An ongoing challenge is to bring influence to bear on countries’ political frameworks and government institutions. Finally, in my work on Myanmar, for example, I see that an official view forms very quickly, whereas more time is needed to recognise different perspec-tives and develop alternatives.

FriEnt explored this dangerous legacy of violence at an expert workshop. And although it was apparent that there are no blueprints, there is a wealth of practical experience which can provide guidance when dealing with new elites.

• Consider their characteristics:Former resistance move-ments base their image on their – sometimes armed – opposition to the government. “Us or them” attitudes, clear loyalties, mistrust and isolationist tendencies towards outsiders play a key role. Resistance movements are not homogeneous entities and there is a risk of internal frag-mentation and radicalisation of individual groups. After a “successful struggle”, they expect to gain political and economic influence, but rarely have any experience in government and administration. External actors must look very carefully at access and trust, existing capacities and skills asymmetries in government coalitions.

6

The Arab world in transition: the key role of civil society

are battling for political influence, but also for the opportunity to define social norms and narratives. At the same time, polit-ical frameworks, administrative processes and interlocutors are often still unclear – and the same therefore applies to the opportunities and limits to civil society engagement. All this is taking place against a disastrous economic backdrop: a “democracy dividend” in financial form is far out of reach for most people due to the ongoing political instability.

The list of challenges is long, and raises the question of how external actors can effectively support these transition pro-cesses. Western donors’ customary blueprints don’t seem to fit the bill – starting with financial support: movements and loosely organised groups have rarely established the struc-tures that donors demand. So how can they be reached? Indeed, do they want to be reached at all? After all, support from the West can weaken local civil society organisations and their agendas due to Western actors’ lack of credibility in Arab societies. Cultural and language barriers can also impede Western access. Moreover, there is growing financial and normative competition resulting from the strong presence and funding from the Gulf states.

Now more than ever, Western donors must therefore be mindful of their limitations, the possible negative consequen-ces of their funding practices, and past inadequacies. It is equally important to achieve a better understanding of the role and character of “civil society” in the various countries. What is the partners’ base within society? How much reso-nance do they have, and how much scope to shape devel-opments? Where do alliances – or conflicts – exist with other civil society actors and political elites? Are there any “weavers” – in other words, people of integrity who can help to reconcile divergent positions? Depending on the answers to these questions, different aspects need to be supported.

Tunisia’s “Jasmine Revolution” was the catalyst for a wave of popular uprisings across the Arab world, with protesters in many of these countries calling for democratic change, opportunities for participation and better livelihoods. But despite the similarity of their initial demands, the picture today is one of diversity. In some countries, such as Tunisia and Libya, regimes have been toppled, either peacefully or with violence; elsewhere, social, economic and political reforms have taken place within existing systems, as in Morocco, but in other countries, notably Syria, there is ongoing repression and escalating violence. It remains to be seen which route Egypt will take after the military ousted the elected President.

In all these countries, civil society played a key role and triggered the protests, initially in loosely organised groups. Soon, it was taking on a variety of functions. At the local level, it offered protection from violence and documented human rights violations, engaged with the media and undertook political advocacy, and provided basic services. The high level of courage, creativity and self-organisation, not least in social networks, took many people by surprise and prompted the West to rethink its attitudes towards “the” Arab world.

But as the situation in Tunisia and particularly Egypt shows, the real challenges start after regime change. Decades of repression have left little or no room for political expression, participation, consensus-building or willingness to compro-mise on policy. These are hard-won skills which have to be acquired with practice by all sides under difficult conditions. The newly elected government representatives find them-selves face to face with the old elites in the administration, judiciary and economy. Constitutional processes, too, are proving difficult. Secular, religious and fundamentalist forces

Support ing change

7

FriEnt Activities

Support ing change

At the Middle East Round Table, FriEnt members have focused, inter alia, on the role and challenges facing civil society actors after the uprisings in the Arab world and on Western donors’ funding practices. The themes of these events were:

The Human Rights Approach in Palestine (April 2011)

Egypt in transition – challenges for civil society actors (May 2011)

Social justice and political participation? What role can transi-tional justice play in Tunisia and Egypt? (March 2012)

Challenges in transition: Challenges for civil society in the MENA region (August 2012)

“Bread, freedom, social justice” – slogans at many of the protests. Photo: picturealliance / Landov

Dealing with human rights abuses of the former regime is an important aspect of the democratization process in Tunisia. What needs to be addressed – and what are the challenges?We have different victim groups in Tunisia: former political prisoners, a huge number of victims of violations of econo-mic and social rights, including endemic corruption and embezzlement, victims of revolutionary violence, and people who were restricted in movement or their choice of profes-sion. Hence, like in many other countries around the globe, there are different interests and needs and we do not have a national consensus on the priorities of transitional justice in Tunisia. Moreover, institutional reform and transparent vetting processes of former officials pose a challenge to us.

What role does civil society play – and what is the govern-ment doing?Civil society was essential in initiating the process. In 2011, we have mobilized and provided the necessary human resources and most of the expertise. Now, we have entered into a dialogue process with the Ministry of Human Rights and Transitional Justice. National consultations were held, and a law on transitional justice was drafted in a participatory way. Nevertheless, we are only at the beginning. The political will of the government needs to remain non-partisan, and civil society is playing an important role as “watch dog” in this regard.

How can external actors support the transitional justice process in Tunisia? External actors should support the process technically by providing expertise and, when needed, study materials. They may give financial support, but in a limited and neutral manner, otherwise they will dilute national ownership. The international community should also monitor the process. They should not give a blank check to officials or transitional justice institutions, but keep listening and interacting with other actors - supporters as well as opponents of the process.

Above all, however, there should be no reliance on blue-prints.

A stronger focus on needs and context is important in order to develop differentiated short- and long-term support mechanisms and, for example, to assist civil society organisa-tions to identify roles and options for themselves. Internatio-nal governmental and civil society actors would also do well to advocate for appropriate NGO legislation, preferably by working together through political dialogue and public pressure. This is the only way to ensure that civil society can continue to play a role in politics and society.

“We are only at the beginning”Amine Ghali from GIZ’s partner organisation Al Kawakibi Democracy Transition Center (KADEM) talks about the challenges for transitional justice in Tunisia.

Wrapped in the Tunisian flag: a demonstrator in Tunis. Photo: Holly Pickett/The New York Times/Redux/laif

8

The number of actors engaged at the interface between development and peace and supporting societies’ transition away from conflict and violence is steadily increasing. However, structured cooperation and the much-discussed synergy effects are called for much more often than they are realised. In this increasingly complex field, the United Nations (UN) plays a key role in conceptual, strategic and operational terms, with the UN agencies, through their missions and projects worldwide, working intensively to address thematic issues and manage regional conflicts.

At the same time, the interest in developments at UN level has declined somewhat in Germany in recent years. Whereas some political processes, such as national implementation of Resolution 1325 and the debate about the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) have attracted a great deal of political attention, important institutional and conceptual develop-ments proved to be less resonant. This is worrying, for it is the United Nations, with its global presence, universal membership and many years of experience of cooperating with civil society actors, which has particular potential to increase the effectiveness of peacebuilding.

Against this backdrop, FriEnt focused on two key UN-level developments. Firstly, it looked at the further development of the UN’s peacebuilding architecture (PBA), comprising the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), the Peacebuilding Fund and the Peacebuilding Support Office. International interest in these structures, established in 2005, has quickly declined, and the first review of the PBC, carried out under the German Chair in 2010, did not create any fresh momentum for strengthening and developing the PBC. Nonetheless, the experience gained here offers good starting points and potential for cooperation which are of relevance to German actors and their local partners.

Whereas the criticism of the PBC’s lack of effectiveness continued to resonate to some extent, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s efforts to progressively strengthen the UN Department of Political Affairs (DPA) remained largely under the radar. And yet the greater emphasis on the DPA’s role in the field of preventive diplomacy and the increase in DPA-led “political missions” constitute one of the key developments at the UN level in both operational and strategic/conceptual terms. This was apparent, not least, from the Secretary-General’s report Preventive Diplomacy: Delivering results, published in August 2011.

Peacebuilding and preventive diplomacy are also overshad-owed by the UN’s peace missions, which have a higher media profile. And yet action in these areas is well-suited to providing constructive support for transition processes and offers many opportunities for linkage with governmental and civil society actors. The efforts to reform the peace missions also offer starting points. Despite various reform initiatives based on the Brahimi report after 2000 and as part of the New Horizon process from 2009, Peter Schumann observed during the panel discussion on the International Day of Peace in 2011 that UN missions nowadays increasingly tend to offer off-the-peg conflict management solutions instead of creating a framework in which the conflict parties can negotiate solutions of their own. It’s a criticism which has also been voiced repeatedly by German actors and which must be considered in future reform processes.

A quiet companion: the UN and social change

Support ing change

9

Refugees talk to a UN representative at the Egypt-Libya border. Photo: UN Photo/UNHCR/P Moore

FriEnt Activities

During the Peace Days in Bonn, FriEnt, Bread for the World – Protestant Development Service and the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES) have for some years held a public panel discussion on current and controversial issues in peace and development policy. Topics addressed in recent years have included:

A new state – Peace at last? Lessons learned in statebuilding from Kosovo to Somaliland and South Sudan (September 2011)

Negotiate before it’s too late? Preventive diplomacy 20 years after the Agenda for Peace (September 2012)

FriEnt also aims to identify potential for practical cooperation with UN institutions and informs its members about current develop-ments, for example through expert workshops:

The UN Peacebuilding Architecture (October 2012)

In the member states, too, there needs to be a better understanding of the UN’s role. FriEnt can make an impor-tant contribution to creating this better understanding and to practical exchange and cooperation with agencies within the UN system. This is how we at FES in New York see our particular contribution to the Working Group.

“Doing more with less” Interview with Volker Lehmann, FES New York

You follow developments at UN level on behalf of the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. Which peacebuilding processes have characterised the UN to the greatest extent in recent years? The UN has focused intensively on R2P over recent years, both on a normative and on a practical level. The Security Council-mandated intervention in Libya in early 2011 success- fully averted mass atrocities. However, the conflict in Syria casts the concept’s limitations into sharp relief. The develop-ment of a principle such as R2P simply does not go far enough to overcome a major clash of interests between the global powers on the Security Council in a serious conflict. There have also been important debates about the further devel-opment of peace operation mandates and on arms control, focusing in particular, in recent years, on a treaty to control the arms trade.

What’s your view of Germany’s role and engagement in these processes? In 2010, Germany held the Chair of the Peacebuilding Commis- sion and achieved some major improvements, one of these being the institutionalisation of relations with the World Bank and the IMF. Under the German Chair, the Commission’s position within the UN was strengthened as well, which is apparent from the Security Council’s growing recognition of its expertise in relation to the mandating of peace operations and the focus on peacebuilding. By comparison, Germany’s engagement in the field of conflict prevention was less visible. Germany was a member of various groups of friends (conflict prevention and mediation) but ultimately, as with its member- ship of the Security Council, it tended to refer primarily to EU positions.

What do you see as the greatest challenges in the coming years? What role can FriEnt and its members play in this context? Constantly “doing more with less” will undoubtedly be the fundamental challenge. The relationship between peacebuild-ing and peacekeeping is often viewed from a cost-saving perspective: peacebuilding and conflict prevention are generally seen as cheaper options than peace operations. In this cost calculation, however, the resources needed for peacebuilding tend to be underestimated, and this sends out a very dubious message. Based on a realistic timeframe – by which I mean several decades – for transformation and sustainable development, it is clear that there is a need for substantial resources. If attention merely focuses on supposed- ly “free” elections, as in Somalia and in Mali, there is a risk that UN missions will simply lead to a postponement of violence without laying the foundations for a lasting peace.

A further major challenge lies in the relationship between member states, the UN and a growing number of national and international NGOs engaged in peacebuilding. However, the key issue here isn’t comprehensive coordination but a shared awareness of each actor’s potential and limitations.

Support ing change

Dr Sina Schüssler (German Platform for Peaceful Conflict Management), Sebastian Einsiedel (UN), Dr Antje Herrberg (MediatEUr) and Natascha Zupan (FriEnt) discuss preventive diplomacy on the International Day of Peace in 2012. Photo: Sandra Then

10

FriEnt-Aktivitäten

Conflicts in the South Caucasus: between progress and stagnation

hopes and expectations of EU engagement, with a stronger focus on prevention in order to reach some kind of resolution to the conflict in the medium term.

In this situation, constructive conflict management is more urgently needed than ever. Fresh opportunities lie in the systematic involvement of civil society in programme and policy dialogue, in capacity development, the promotion of democracy, and regional cooperation between the three countries in South Caucasus. Klaus Tanzberger, desk officer at the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Develop-ment (BMZ), explains: “Transboundary cooperation, which is promoted via the Caucasus Initiative in sectors such as nature conservation, energy, economic development, legal and judicial advice and municipal networking, aims to strengthen shared interests and promote dialogue. At the same time, at national level, building democratic institutions, municipal development, the promotion of an independent civil society, and human rights advocacy all have an impor-tant role to play. These measures help to create a basis for stable and peaceful societies and regional conflict mitigation with a view to achieving good-neighbourly relations.”

Some movement can be discerned in many areas in South Caucasus, not least as a result of the parliamentary elections in Georgia and the resulting change of government. The new government in Tbilisi promised change in the country’s relations with Russia and a shift in its position towards conflict regions Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Civil society organisations had high hopes of political change, which they expected to lead to an easing of the border regime, new forms of cooperation with partners from the conflict regions, and an improvement in conditions for those affected by the conflicts. But these hopes were disappointed: neither the systematic participation of civil society organisations nor the involvement of conflict-affected groups, particularly women, in the peace talks has been achieved in full. Furthermore, disputes over status issues, rights of return and security for internally displaced persons and refugees have resulted in deadlock in the negotiations.

In the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, too, the cracking of the ice seemed to be within reach – but the minor thaw in this once frozen conflict seems to have cast even more of a cloud over relations between the conflict parties. In both countries, defence spending – funded on one side from oil revenue and on the other by external donors – has increased. At the same time, the warmongering rhetoric of political leaders and the growing number of border incidents are reminiscent of the escalating situation along Georgia’s internal borders which led to the outbreak of war between Russia and Georgia in August 2008. There is a growing fear on all sides that in the dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh, there will be an increase in the use of military force and a new war. Civil society organi-sations seem to have lost all hope in the peace negotiations between the two Presidents, which are supported by the international community. On the other hand, there are

Support ing change

FriEnt Activities

With the South Caucasus Round Table, FriEnt aims to promote a more nuanced debate about the complexity of, and interrela-tionships between, the conflicts in South Caucasus. The topics of the latest meetings were:

Azerbaijan: A little peace? (February 2012)

All quiet on the Eastern front? Managing conflict after the elections in Georgia (December 2012)

A checkpoint in Nagorno-Karabakh Photo: gettyimages/Matthias Schumann

11

FriEnt Activities

In cooperation with Kenyan partners, FriEnt’s Kenya Round Table analyses the relationship between long-term support for political change and short-term contributions to the prevention of violence. The following topics have been discussed to date:

How will Kenya move forward – Speeding up constitutional reforms or postponing elections? (May 2011)

Sailing into uncertainty – Preparations for the 2012 elections (November 2011)

Background to the current political situation in Kenya – discussion session (May 2012)

Kenya beyond March 2013 (October 2012)

Preventing violence in times of transition

Support ing change

half-yearly intervals until the elections in March 2013 and updated it to account for any change in the determinants. Based on the findings, Kenyan partners and German organi-sations were able to adapt their ongoing local programmes more effectively to take account of the challenges associated with short-term conflict prevention.

On the one hand, the opportunities for external actors to bring influence to bear over the short term should not be overrated; on the other, Civil Peace Service partners pointed out that in tense situations, symbolic gestures and state-ments by international partners can have an effect, either positive or negative. For the potentially critical days of the presidential elections, their recommendation was as follows: “The support we request from our international friends should help to reinstall credibility within the people. The kind of support currently most needed is moral support for our institutions and appreciation for the learning curve new institutions are undergoing, but also corrective support, if institutions really fail, correct them without undermining their reputation and self-confidence.”

Early warning and management of conflicts can help to avoid an escalation of violence. German and international actors therefore make every effort to ensure that long-term develop-ment cooperation is conflict-sensitive. For some years, how-ever, conflict prevention and peacebuilding has increasingly taken place in a context of profound political change. This requires not only a long-term peace perspective but also short-term prevention strategies.

Social transition is a balancing act and runs an ongoing risk of failing and escalating into violence. At the beginning of the transformation process, political adversaries may well start out by formulating shared goals such as the establishment of legitimate and efficient state institutions, democratic proces-ses and more accountable and fair distribution of government resources, but as events unfold, old conflicts of interest often resurface, inflaming society’s mood.

So in highly dynamic political contexts, there is a need not only for long-term management of the causes of conflict but also for methods, mechanisms and resources to counteract short-term violent trends. As the starting point, it is essential to analyse potential faultlines, pressure points and trigger factors which can greatly increase the risk of violent unrest during specific phases of the political process.

In November 2011, FriEnt and the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES) embarked on a process of scenario analysis within the framework of the Kenya Round Table. FriEnt members’ Kenyan partners identified 10 factors which they regarded as particularly influential in determining whether the elections would pass off peacefully or escalate into violence, such as the conduct of the President, the conduct and performance of electoral authorities, and the stability of political processes at the local level. FriEnt repeated the scenario analysis at

Political change harbours the risk of violence in Kenya. Photo: picture alliance/AP Photo

Komplex wie die Wirklichkeit: Wirkungsmessung in der Friedensarbeit

Entwicklungspolitische Friedensarbeit ist kein Puzzle, bei dem man „nur“ die richtigen Teile an die richtige Stelle platzieren muss, um zu Lösungen zu gelangen. In Wirklichkeit ist das Bild wesentlich chaotischer. Prozesse des sozialen Wandels verlaufen in den seltensten Fällen linear, sondern sind vielschichtig und unvorhersehbar. Der direkte Einfluss eines Entwicklungs- oder Friedensprogramms ist damit eher die Ausnahme als die Regel. Aber was hindert, was hilft wirklich bei der Erhöhung der Wirkung von Friedens-arbeit? Welche internationalen Entwicklungen gibt es hier? Welche Veränderungen müssen bei externen Akteuren selber beginnen? Fast quer durch alle unsere Themenschwerpunkte standen diese Fragen auf der Tagesordnung.

Wirkung erhöhen

Increas ing impact

121212

As complex as reality: impact assessment in peacebuilding

Peacebuilding is not a puzzle: it’s not only about fitting the right piece into the right place in order to complete the picture. In reality, finding a solution is far more complex. Social change is rarely a linear process; rather, it is multi-dimensional and unpredictable. Being able to detect the direct influence of a peace or development programme is therefore the exception rather than the rule. What hinders and what genuinely helps to increase the impact of peacebuilding? Which international developments come into play here? Which changes must begin with external actors themselves? These issues featured on the agenda in almost all our thematic priorities.

Increasing impact

on a multitude of interdependent factors and is almost impossible to predict. In any event, it does not take place “in a European rhythm”.

But what are “desired changes”? “In peacebuilding and conflict management, the meaning of the word “change” is heavily dependent on people’s subjective perceptions. The real challenge is identifying the changes which genuine signify progress on peace. For donor organisations, this concept is not always easy to grasp,” said Katharina Götte and Leila Broich from Misereor. “That’s why close and case-specific dialogue between target groups, project workers and donor organisations is particularly important in impact-oriented planning, monitoring and evaluation of projects in the peacebuilding sector. There should be more discussion of how this dialogue can be shaped and how it can contribute to the body of knowledge about impacts and processes.”

We need new learning spaces outside established structures and processes. We need more enthusiasm for experimenta-tion with alternative methods, and more consistent applica-tion of existing standards. Until now, impact assessment of interventions in post-conflict situations has been more of a hindrance than a help. This was the conclusion drawn at two workshops on results orientation and impact assessment in peacebuilding hosted by FriEnt in conjunction with the Center for Peacebuilding (KOFF) of swisspeace in Bonn and Berne.

The specific conditions of conflict and post-conflict settings create the first challenge: complex, highly political, emo-tionally charged – and extremely dynamic. “It’s essential to proceed with extreme sensitivity,” emphasised Father Emmanuel Ntakarutimana, Director of the Ubuntu Centre in Bujumbura, during the discussions. The fact is that in this context, change is not a linear process. Rather, it depends

FriEnt-Aktivitäten

Together with the Center for Peacebuilding (KOFF) of swisspeace, FriEnt organised two workshops which looked at the opportuni-ties and obstacles associated with impact assessment in peacebuilding.

Impact assessment in peacebuilding: specific challenges, specific approaches? (May 2012)

FriEnt Activities

Increas ing impact

131313

Traffic chaos in Phnom Penh. Photo: Martin Roemers/laif

Risks and side-effects

So it’s even more important for international organisations to work together and focus on the key factors relating to fragility and conflict. That also means supporting competent and legitimate local partners and showing greater willingness to accept “failure” and learn from it. What is needed is a new risk-taking and learning culture.

“We shouldn’t just be developing and implementing pro-grammes where there is some certainty, from the outset, that impacts can be achieved in a relatively straightforward manner but which often only address the symptoms. We should also be opting for projects which take account of complexity and address the root causes of the problems, as these may well achieve more in the long term. Often, however, these projects have a greater risk of failure,” said

Elke Stumpf from GIZ, summing up at the end of the FriEnt/KOFF Workshop in Bonn. And she continued: “This risk can be counteracted – through lengthy and trustful cooperation with strong partners, through cooperation with a broad range of civil society groups, and, last but not least, through far more intensive joint action between different sectors.”

The impact debate and the issue of accountability are interlinked, however. In this context, the focus shifts away from “learning processes” and towards “control”. And yet it is the former which can do much more to ensure that the experience gained is channelled into the next steps. Three aspects need to be considered here:

• Institutional learning: How can experience gained be channelled into practical work? Is it necessary to trial fresh approaches and create new institutional frameworks?

• Methods: Linear thinking is not an adequate response to the complexity of peace processes. Systemic approaches and analytical methods, such as the development of scenarios or “most significant change” must be practised and applied far more consciously within organisations.

• Partner relationships: A focus on results is also a social relationship issue, a “learning community” between “donors” and “recipients”. This is even more important in (post-) conflict settings, which are unpredictable and where gaining an overview is difficult. “Peer reviews” or south-north dialogues which provide space for exchange on equal terms, with a focus on strategies and practices, can sharpen awareness of genuinely impact-oriented peacebuilding.

And finally, a further key issue is accountability to “target groups”, for it is their situation which should change for the better as a result of the organisations’ work. It is noticeable that this aspect does not feature in the impact debate. Without it, however, any work undertaken in (post-) conflict settings is likely to be “lacking in impact”.

All this underlines, once again, the need to challenge current practice. The usual justification provided for current practice is that it promotes “accountability”. But if this means apply-ing approaches and methods which only partially fulfil the objectives of peacebuilding, and all stakeholders – including donors – feel constrained, it is time to adapt strategies and practice so that they have a greater focus on impact assess-ment, by taking better account of local conditions and meeting local needs – and thus achieving better outcomes.

Photo: Stéphane Bidouze/Fotolia.com

Konflikt und Fragilität: Herausforderungen für wirksame Entwicklungszusammenarbeit

Increas ing impact

Conflict and fragility: challenges for development effectiveness

Rarely have the topics of conflict and fragile statehood been such a focus of interest in the international aid effectiveness debate as they are today. The main reason is the recognition that “fragile” states face the greatest difficulties achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Current donor practices are not entirely blameless in this regard: in 2011, the OECD pointed out that donor countries still have a long way to go to achieve compliance with the ten agreed Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States and Situations.

Within the framework of the International Dialogue on Peace-building and Statebuilding, a group of fragile states therefore met with international donors and defined a new set of goals and new ways of engaging in fragile states. The result is a document entitled A New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States, which was endorsed by numerous countries at the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan at late 2011 and is currently being piloted in seven countries. According to the New Deal, periodic fragility assessments should be conducted as a basis for a shared vision of the future, to be fleshed out in a joint plan and a compact for its implementation (“one vision, one plan”). Five “Peacebuilding and Statebuilding Goals” (PSGs) – for which indicators have now been developed – will provide the foundation for cooperation with fragile states:

• Legitimate Politics – Foster inclusive political settlements and conflict resolution

• Security – Establish and strengthen people’s security• Justice – Address injustices and increase people’s access

to justice• Economic Foundations – Generate employment and

improve livelihoods• Revenues & Services – Manage revenue and build

capacity for accountable and fair service delivery

141414

Despite all the enthusiasm, there are still some concerns: for example, that the New Deal could be regarded, wrongly, as a blueprint, leading to the misguided expectation that long-term transition processes can deliver rapid results. The relationship between the fragility assessments and other instruments is still unclear, and there is a concern that the proposed strategies could lead to the emergence of parallel processes (e.g. in the development of national poverty reduction strategies or the implementation of peace agree-ments) and hence to inefficiency.

The participants at a FriEnt workshop in early 2012 soon made it clear that the goals and principles are not the innovative element of the New Deal. Rather, the innovative aspect is that the fragile states themselves – notwithstanding all their reservations about defining themselves as “fragile” – have taken the initiative. This “spirit” of the New Deal creates an unprecedented obligation for fragile states to address the task of achieving political settlements.

But it is not only the fragile states which have to deliver. Dr Almut Wieland-Karimi, Director of the Center for Inter-national Peace Operations (ZIF), emphasises that the New Deal has the potential to change donor countries’ mindsets and modes of action, so that instead of pursuing their own priorities and agendas, they take appropriate account of fragile states’ perspectives and capacities. “Under the New Deal, the in-country assessments have to be taken as a starting point for aligning our support to these countries’ needs. At the same time, however, we must not be too uncritical; we must think about our role as external actors in fragile and conflict-affected states, and consider which goals are appropriate and which alliances we can and should be building. The New Deal places civil society’s involvement in identifying local needs firmly on the agenda, and that is a

FriEnt-Aktivitäten

Increas ing impact

Workers build extra shelter at the Nkamira transit centre in Rwanda. Photo: UNHCR/S. Modola/www.unhcr.de

FriEnt responds to current policy debates at the international level and involves international actors in the dialogue with FriEnt members. Two events have taken place with a focus on impacts and peacebuilding:

Evaluation of EU support to conflict prevention and peacebuild-ing: new impetus for a European peace strategy? (December 2011)

A New Deal for fragile states: International engagement after Busan (January 2012)

Market in Itafaq, Afghanistan. Photo: Thomas Trutschel/photothek.net

151515

FriEnt Activities

What role do civil society actors play in New Deal implemen-tation? It is my thinking that civil society‘s role is to bring in fresh thoughts and experience to the various New Deal processes. We can put forward our ideas about the form that construc-tive relations between state and society can take, how to promote national ownership, monitoring and evaluation, and we can provide feedback for better decision making and planning. Of course, this means that first and foremost, our enabling space for action is safeguarded so that we can utilise our opportunities to contribute and perform our watchdog role. If this commitment, defined in the New Deal, is fulfilled, constructive engagement is possible.

Does the New Deal offer starting points for integrating peace and security into the post-2015 development agenda? Yes, it does so in three respects. Firstly, the New Deal calls for an end to a narrow interpretation of development and addresses political dimensions. Secondly, it dispenses with the traditional donor-recipient relationship and focuses on the concept of partnership. And thirdly, it offers starting points for focusing on the causes, not just the symptoms, of conflict. Conflicts can be found in all societies, thus, a global integration of peace that promotes development and development that promotes peace is desirable and possible.

What does the New Deal mean to you?I regard the New Deal as an attempt to work together and find joint approaches to overcoming fragile statehood so as to achieve sustainable development and lasting peace. However, the challenges start with the word “joint”: I miss a real commitment of governments to transfer and transform government ownership of the New Deal to national owner-ship which broadens and deepen peoples‘ participation in New Deal processes. Clearly, I think a few government agencies are leaving both the ‚whole of government‘ and the rest of society behind. I also see a lack of any clear recogni-tion that the New Deal is not just “business as usual”.

genuine step forward. So we need to think outside the box and bring development and peacebuilding stakeholders together to a greater extent so that they can learn from each other and identify a common way forward. This is one of our prime motives for joining FriEnt, by the way.”

“Implementing the New Deal requires civil society participation”

The post-2015 development agenda can also draw inspirati-on from the New Deal in order to identify innovative ways forward and avoid past errors, as Lancedell Matthews from the New African Research and Development Agency (NARDA), a Liberian partner organisation working with Bread for the World – Protestant Development Service, explains:

16

FriEnt-Aktivitäten

Capacity development for conflict transformation

“A fresh view is needed” Interview with Ivana Franovic, Centre for Nonviolent Action, Belgrade

According to your experience: What are “Capacities for Conflict Transformation”?The most important capacity you need is motivation - people who are truly committed and willing to work for social change. Capacities can be developed. In order to work on the transfor-mation of relationships for example, one needs to be perceived as unbiased. Hence, people need to develop a deep understan-ding of all sides of the conflict and the different narratives and positions. It’s also important to develop communication and trust building skills: In a conflicting environment, people must know how to ask the right questions, and they must have the courage and the sensitivity to address taboos.

So, which capacities can be developed?You always need a “fresh view” from outside. Therefore, feed-back and sharing international experiences are very important. If there are not enough skills in a region, external actors can offer education, and they can bring people together if relation-ships are totally broken. But internationals should keep in mind that they are always perceived as “outsiders”, because it’s not their life and their society. Hence, they should not “possess the process” – it’s not them who make changes.

Capacity development is a popular topic. Since the Paris Agenda and the debate about more efficiency, effectiveness and partnership, it has become synonymous with more ownership and sustainability in development cooperation. But which factors need to be considered for capacity devel-opment to bring positive benefits for conflict transformation?

Capacity development does not mean “empowering” others; it means shared learning and change. Linear thinking and a focus on results have no role to play here, for if a large number of stakeholders are involved in the process, there is always an element of chance. Nonetheless, capacity develop-ment for conflict transformation should not be a random or indiscriminate process but must be planned as a project in its own right, with partners’ needs as the starting point. The desired outcomes and parameters must be clearly defined and various approaches – advice, training, supervision, networking, south-south exchange and funding – must all come into play.

For outsiders, trust and mutual respect are absolutely key, and pose particular challenges in post-conflict societies characterised by instability, insecurity, fear and mistrust.

Capacity development is also not a neutral process but has social policy implications. Different dimensions of power play a role in this context. In conflict settings in particular, it is essential to consider that individuals and organisations have various sources of power which may not be easily discernible to outsiders, but which are integral to shaping the opportu-nities for, and limits to, capacity development.

Increas ing impact

FriEnt Activities

FriEnt members and international guests exchanged experience on capacity development in (post-) conflict settings at a work-shop organised by FriEnt and the Civil Peace Service Group. The identified challenges formed the basis for a process of professio-nal exchange.

Towards strategic capacity development for conflict transformati-on (December 2011)

Children in Kpalimé, Togo, learn non-violent patterns of behaviour. Photo: Helge Bendel/Bread for the World

17

FriEnt Activities

FriEnt is engaged in various activities at the interface between transitional justice, development and peace:

Health systems in (post-) conflict situations – transitional justice and peacebuilding (May 2011)

Gender, reparations and development (February 2012)

Transitional justice: current trends and challenges (November 2012)

Increas ing impact

Transitional justice and development: joining forces for more effectiveness

policies by sharing their expertise, building the capacities of government institutions, or assisting civil society organisa-tions and victim groups. A one-sided approach that focuses on civil society or government alone certainly does not go far enough.

In order to support the transformative aspects of reparation and development programmes, the gender dimension must be at the forefront of attention. All too often, this is still being reduced to “working with and for women”. Equally important is the empowerment of victim groups in these processes: “We have often seen that inadequate and delayed implementation of reparation programmes with their bureaucratic procedures has a disempowering and in some cases even a retraumatising effect. Implementation must be aligned with victims’ needs,” said Usche Merk from medico international at a FriEnt workshop.

Health and trauma work offer a perfect starting point for people to participate in the social and economic life after conflict, destruction and violence again. Here, too, it is clear that development cooperation and transitional justice are more effective if there is stronger alignment of different approaches, experience and skills.

How effective are truth commissions and war crime tribunals? Do they enhance the rule of law, recognition for the victims and even reconciliation – the aspirations frequently set forth in their mandates? Scholars and practitioners are increasing-ly focusing on this question, for after years of euphoria, there is growing criticism of the impacts of transitional justice. What is certain is that a variety of measures must be applied. “Anyone who relies solely on criminal justice will fall into the accountability trap. Criminal proceedings on their own cannot meet the needs of victims or restore trust and confidence in the state’s institutions and its responsibility to protect,” says Mo Bleeker, Head of the Task Force on Dealing with the Past at the Swiss Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Instead, elements of truth-finding, accountability, compensation for victims, and state guarantees that serious human rights violations will not recur must be “joined up” and interact.

There are limits to this interaction in practice, but the use of the interfaces between transitional justice mechanisms and development cooperation poses an even greater challenge. In today’s post-conflict settings, these mechanisms are most effective if the social and economic dimensions of justice are considered, combined with a stronger focus on reparations. For example, the Peruvian Truth and Reconciliation Commis-sion has produced a reparations plan which deals, inter alia, with conflict-related health impairment and thus establishes a basis for reparations relating to health.

Cooperation with development actors in funding and implementing reparation programmes would seem to be the most appropriate way forward. However, there are various factors which must be considered. Conflict-sensitive develop-ment cooperation is no substitute for reparations, which are the responsibility of the state. External actors can merely support the preparation and implementation of reparation

Photo: UN Photo/Louise Gubb

At the start of the Millennium, there was fresh momentum: the lessons learned from Rwanda and the Balkan wars created the certainty that development can never be “conflict-neutral”. On the contrary, development processes always have winners and losers and can worsen conflicts. There was a clear recognition that conflict prevention and the socio-economic and political causes of conflict must be added to the list of cross-cutting issues for development policy. As a result, in the Gothenburg Programme, the EU committed to the OECD-DAC guidelines which specify that conflict prevention and peace-building are eligible uses of development assistance. There was considerable movement at the UN level as well. It was these developments which led to the founding of FriEnt on September 1st, 2001.

Ten years later, in our anniversary year, we reflected on the subsequent and eventful career of mainstreaming peace-building and conflict prevention in development. In various

workshops, dialogues, a public panel discussion and an eight-part essay series, experts discussed the notable successes achieved, such as the development of instruments and approaches for conflict-sensitive planning, monitoring, and evaluation of development projects, but also identified a number of gaps in the integration of peacebuilding into key areas of development cooperation. Why have they occurred?

The attempt to find some answers began 11 days after FriEnt’s formal establishment. After 9/11, the concept of security underwent a radical change. Interventions in (post-) conflict situations were increasingly analysed in terms of the “security-development nexus”. “Comprehensive approaches”, “whole of government” and “civil-military cooperation” were just some of the many new concepts which came into being to describe the interaction between foreign, security and development policy actors in fragile states and conflict settings. As a result, new fields of action and strategies – such as support for justice

Development for peace: an eventful career – a promising future?

Peace and development are inseparably linked. This is particularly apparent in relation to land conflicts, which are on the increase. The constructive role of education in the prevention and transformation of violent conflict is another example. Mainstreaming issues are back on the agenda, then. In 2011, the year in which FriEnt celebrated its 10th anniversary, we focused on the gap between knowledge and practice with regard to mainstreaming and identified a number of challenges. From this starting point, FriEnt members have explored the mainstreaming of peacebuilding and conflict prevention in the sectors education, land and human rights.

Anchoring peace

Anchoring peace

181818

19

Anchor ing peace

Photo: sergei_fish13/Fotolia.com

personnel and resources. At the same time, a perceived need to respond to current events and developments imposes tight constraints on mainstreaming.

But surely, it’s the impact that counts! How should the success of conflict-sensitive work be measured, and what are the difficulties that arise in this context?The debate about conflict-sensitive development work has, gratifyingly, left its mark. There is a great deal of knowledge available which can be – and to some extent is already being – used in the current debate about analysing intended and unintended impacts. Here, structures such as FriEnt make a contribution by pooling the knowledge of many different organisations, analysing it systematically and thus easing the workload of many of these organisations. One major difficulty is that in the field of conflict transformation and peacebuilding in particular, the impacts can only be identi-fied in long timeframes, and there are no blueprints – not-

From back: Dr Dan Smith (International Alert), Prof Dirk Messner (DIE), Andrea Böhm (Die Zeit), Dr Agnes Abuom (TAABCO) and Prof Winrich Kühne (Johns Hopkins University) during a panel discussion on 19 October 2011 to celebrate FriEnt’s 10th anniversary. Photo: Thomas Ecke/photothek

and security sector reforms, and demobilisation and reintegra-tion programmes – and a strong focus on institutional capacity building emerged in the context of development cooperation as well.

In development cooperation, however, there was a growing concern about the one-sided approach being adopted towards security policy: long-term strategies should not be subject to short-term logic. There was also criticism, early on, of the overloaded agenda. Peacebuilding was increasingly suspected of serving as nothing more than camouflage for the assertion of security policy interests. There was little scope to think about ways of developing the somewhat vague concepts of “structural prevention” and sector-specific mainstreaming – and thus about the development community’s independent contributions to peace.

Slowly but surely, however, the page is turning. The potential inherent in key development sectors – such as education, health and land – for peacebuilding and conflict prevention has steadily re-emerged as a focus of attention in the interna-tional debate, not only in terms of a peace dividend but also, and above all, in terms of its positive role in promoting social cohesion and constructive state-society relations.

„Intermittend progress“ Interview with Dr Wolfgang Heinrich, Bread for the World – Protestant Development Service

Let’s be honest: mainstreaming has been successfully con-cluded. Isn’t it now about strengthening conflict prevention and peacebuilding as an independent policy field?No, I don’t agree that mainstreaming is over. Effective main- streaming has three dimensions: first and foremost, it’s about “understanding”: the identification and systematic analysis of a challenge and the development of policies and strategies. This step, I agree, has already been concluded in many organisations. But then “understanding” has to be translated into “action”. I see some progress here, but it is intermittent. Very often, it is clear that sound concepts are mentioned in policy documents; perhaps even their language is used, but nothing has changed in practice in many cases. And finally, the experienced gained must be institutionally embedded. Here too, I see some progress, but again, it is intermittent.

What do you see as the greatest challenges that effective mainstreaming poses for state and civil society actors?The fact that organisations have to respond to a wide variety of problems and initiatives is the greatest challenge, in my view. It’s not only about the mainstreaming of peacebuild-ing; organisations want to or must react to other challenges as well. And not least, growing demands of bureaucratic procedures, demands for more efficiency and effectiveness and more complex reporting all absorb a great deal of energy and attention. What’s more, mainstreaming a methodology or field of work requires additional capacities in the form of

19

hing that can be transferred to another context. And finally, peacebuilding aims to change core aspects of social rela-tions. But many actors and factors come into play here, so ascribing specific changes to specific measures or stake- holders is particularly complex.

Komplex wie die Wirklichkeit: Wirkungsmessung in der Friedensarbeit

Anchor ing peace

202020

other social transformation processes are some of the most important tasks for peacebuilding.

Together with its members, FriEnt has explored the interac-tion between education, conflict and peacebuilding. At a FriEnt workshop in June 2011, the conclusions were mixed: “The relevance and substantial contribution made by education in the international and the national discourse have gained in significance. There is now a greater awareness of what can do harm. But principles such as “do no harm” and conflict sensitivity tend to be applied less frequently in practice,” said Dr Klaus Seitz, Head of the Policy Department at Bread for the World – Protestant Development Service, during a FriEnt workshop in June 2011. And he continued: “The topic is neglected on two fronts: in the debate about peacebuilding and statebuilding, education plays a periphe-ral role at best. At the same time, the importance of conflict prevention and peacebuilding is not emphasised enough in the education discourse. What is needed is systematic linkage between conflict prevention, conflict transformation and education.”

There needs to be a stronger focus on issues such as the goals and impacts of education programmes in development policy contexts. Which are the change processes to which education programmes can, and should, contribute in fragile states and societies in conflict? Are the assumed impacts achieved, particularly in intergenerational transformation processes?

Dr Rüdiger Blumör, a planning officer in GIZ’s Health, Education and Social Protection Division, summed up the situation during a FriEnt workshop in December 2012: “Sensitive social reform and transition processes and opportunities to share in the benefits of social, political and

Education plays a key role in the prevention and transforma-tion of conflicts. But what, precisely, is this role, given that the causes of conflict can often be found in the interplay with other sectors – but its impacts are felt in education? We now know that education plays a multi-dimensional role: it can be part of the problem, but it can also help to mitigate the causes of conflict.

However, a well-functioning education system does not necessarily mean an education system that builds peace. Education can worsen social conflicts, for example if access to education is inequitable and marginalises certain social groups, or if education is used as an instrument of cultural oppression, or if its content is used for the purpose of manipulation.

There are numerous examples. In Macedonia, violent protests erupted long before the armed conflict in 2001 because the Albanian minority was largely denied access to higher education. Similarly, the use of force in schools’ learning cultures can legitimise and encourage violence outside school as well.

Depending on the quantity and quality of, and access to, education programmes, education can support the manage-ment and non-violent transformation of conflicts. Education can help to impart values to teachers, students, parents and local communities and encourage them to adopt modes of behaviour which contribute to the prevention and mitigation of violence. Education can strengthen social cohesion and increase political participation by all social groups. These are key pillars of peaceful development. Against this background, building conflict management skills and capacities through education, combined with conflict-sensitive and adaptable education systems, and supporting their interaction with

Education: an ambivalent but key role for development and peace

FriEnt-AktivitätenFriEnt Activities

Since 2011, FriEnt has facilitated a dialogue about the challenges of, potential for, and experiences gained from cooperation with state and civil society actors in formal and non-formal education and peacebuilding. A working group on peace education was set up in March 2012. Workshops on the following topics have been held:

The key role of education in peacebuilding (June 2011)

Education building peace?! Reflecting theories of change on the linkages between education and peacebuilding (December 2012)

212121

cooperation and peacebuilding, increasingly recognize the significance of peace education and its role in preventing, transforming and supporting recovery after violent conflicts. What is peace education? Can peace be learned? Is it only about knowledge sharing? Or is it about developing capaci-ties for conflict transformation?

In a new working group, FriEnt is facilitating an exchange among researchers and practitioners about the understan-ding of peace education and its potential and limits. For Heike Burba from the Civil Peace Service at GIZ, the working group’s added value is that it enables unresolved questions to be addressed jointly, contributing to the further develop-ment of peace education as a whole: “In the FriEnt working

group, we are seeking to achieve a joint understanding of concepts, strategies and terminology and to provide a framework for systematic sharing of experience and the development of criteria and indicators for impact assess-ment. Our approaches to capacity building and knowledge sharing must be context-appropriate.” The aim is to show how peace education strategies at individual level in conflict settings can be integrated systematically into education programmes and can link in with formal and non-formal education.

economic resources can be guided onto positive pathways by a conflict-sensitive education system and offer starting points for peacebuilding, social cohesion and mitigation of fragility. Education sector reforms in fragile and conflict settings must therefore be based on intensive analysis of the conflict context and the education system itself. In-depth analysis of education systems can also provide insights into the conflict risks inherent in a given society. Then – and only then – is it possible to address questions such as “what” and “how”.”

Peace education: the concept and its role

Education policy and institutions have a major influence on the development of identities and behaviour and can change individual attitudes and conduct. Government and civil society organisations, working in the field of development

An education centre in Nepal. Photo: Dominik Langen/GIZ

Anchor ing peace

What is peace? A peace educator at work.Photo: Helge Bendel/Bread for the World

22

FriEnt-Aktivitäten

Land as a peace resource? Human rights and conflict resolution in focus

political will. In Indonesia, for example, implementation of the Guidelines will largely depend on the extent to which local civil society is able to engage in advocacy on land issues, promote respect for land rights and achieve secure tenure for local communities in the face of opposition from political elites and investors with conflicting interests.

In Cambodia, too, land conflicts and human rights violations are routine, with local land users often displaced as a result of large-scale investments in land. The Heinrich Böll Stiftung (hbs) has worked in Cambodia for many years and is calling for respect for human rights in the land sector as a prerequisite for social inclusion and lasting peace. As Petra Zimmermann from the South-East Asia project coordination team points out: “The violence that is prevalent in Cambodia, particularly against people who have been expelled from their land and those who advocate for their rights, is one of the greatest challenges facing development cooperation. Land and residence rights must be safeguarded, particularly for marginalised groups. State and civil society actors have a key role to play by provi-ding solid support for local civil society organisations which are advocating for human rights and non-violent conflict transfor-mation and urging their government to implement land reforms.”

Climate change, the food crisis, the energy crisis: global problems such as these vividly illustrate the finite nature of the world’s natural resources – and the level of conflict potential inherent in them. The economic value of land and other resources such as water, forests and fisheries is steadily rising, yet these resources also form the natural livelihood bases for most local communities. This means that in parallel to its divisive and conflictive dimension, land also has unifying potential, based on its use by communities and the shared value they attach to it.

Land distribution is a key factor in many conflicts and is therefore highly relevant to peacebuilding. However, it is often unclear how land can be utilised as a peace resource. To develop pro-poor, pro-peace land policies, productive capital, legal entitlements and political power would need to be transferred to poor and marginalised groups, enabling them to share in economic benefits and safeguarding their livelihoods over the long term. Land policies must also take account of historical factors, and must be gender-sensitive and inclusive.

At the same time, the peace potential of land is constantly being challenged, for example by increasing agricultural investments, often associated with massive human rights violations. In order to improve the responsible governance of land tenure in the interests of local communities, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), in May 2012, adopted a set of guidelines developed through a broad partnership of international, regional and national organisa-tions, including governments, civil society actors and smallhol-der associations. There are high expectation of these Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security. However, major challenges to their implementation are likely to arise in countries which lack rule-of-law mechanisms and

Anchor ing peace

A village committee in northern Cameroon provides a forum where herders and farmers can work together to develop long-term solutions that prevent land conflicts. Photo: Erwin Geuder-Jilg/Misereor

FriEnt Activities

How can land be utilised as a peace resource, and what form should conflict-sensitive management of natural resources take? These issues were the focus of a number of FriEnt events:

The struggle over land (October 2011)

Resource-grabbing in South-East-Asia (December 2011)

Securing land rights in Cambodia (July 2012)

Land conflicts in Indonesia – What do the FAO’s Voluntary Guidelines have to offer? (November 2012)

23

Anchor ing peace

Colombia: hopes for more peace and justice

A tragic record: Colombia has more displaced persons than any other country in the world. Photo: gettyimages/AFP

FriEnt Activities

The Colombia Round Table focused, inter alia, on the opportuni-ties and risks associated with the Victims and Land Restitution Law.

The Victims and Land Restitution Law: A step forward? (October 2011)

More justice from the law? (June 2012)

German development cooperation in Macarena region (August 2012)

Colombians of African origin suffer discrimination and their rights to restitution are often not recognised.

Despite all the problems, it should not be forgotten that the Law and the land reform agreed at the peace talks can potentially create fresh scope and processes for more justice and at least a partial restitution of land. If the protection of human rights defenders and land rights organisations can be improved and the violence associated with land restitution claims decreases, this will enhance the prospects of effective implementation of the Law and land reform in the regions. “To that end, what is needed, first and foremost, is a clear position and support from the national government. It must take action against corruption and the power relationships that exist between political and economic elites, organised crime and armed groups and take responsibility for effective implementation of the Law at local level,” says Susanne Breuer, Colombia desk officer at Misereor.

International actors should reassert the need for land restitution to the Colombian Government and encourage it to establish the institutional frameworks needed for the Law’s implementation. Above all, support is needed to ensure that returnees are adequately protected and are offered new prospects that enable them to build a future for themselves.

For the people of Colombia, the start of peace talks between the Colombian Government and the FARC guerrillas in October 2012 brought new hopes of peace and justice. The rural population in particular has high expectations of a possible peace agreement. As a first step, the Government and the rebels agreed a land reform – a move which many observers regard as a major achievement. However, much will depend on how this land reform is implemented. In this context, a glance at the difficulties affecting the implementa-tion of Colombia’s Victims and Land Restitution Law, adopted in June 2011, may be instructive.

The Law deals with compensation for victims and the extremely difficult issue of restoring land to displaced persons. However, the major social inequalities in Colombia, land concentration, conflicts between different forms of land use, and the state’s advocacy of a rural development model based on the expansion of agro-industry make it difficult for the Law to be implemented effectively in a manner which serves victims’ interests. The flow of displaced persons from conflict areas and the direct and violent expulsion of rural communities for the seizure of their land are closely linked to these conditions and the armed conflict. Above all, the mismatch between the Victims and Land Restitution Law and national land policy impedes the adoption of effective and coherent policies that would facilitate equitable land restitution and offer new prospects for smallholder farmers.

Victims have found it very difficult to effectively assert their rights to reclaim their land. Armed groups have formed in opposition to land restitution. Victims, who take legal action or apply for the return of their land, and civil society groups which advocate for land restitution, experience various forms of intimidation: stigmatisation, threats, murder and forced resettlement. Women, indigenous communities and

24

As anyone working at the peace/development interface knows, there is an abundance of information available in this field nowadays due to a much more expansive community of practice. That being the case, it is essential to consider strate-gies and developments in other fields, take account of complex situations, identify shared goals, and create synergies. Knowl-edge management and communications have a key role to play in this context. Our aim is to shape our response so that it is appealing, practicable and in line with our members’ interests. At the same time, we want to share our concepts, ideas and the outcomes of our work with the public and policy-makers.

We took account of these diverse objectives when designing our new website. They are also reflected in our choice of communication tools. For example, FriEnt now uses Twitter, where complex issues have to be reduced to just 140 charac-ters. And the FriEnt blog facilitates our engagement in the dialogues about current trends and processes at the interna-tional level.

FriEnt-Impulse is well-established as a respected source of information. Every month, in its pages, well-known authors engage with current peace and development debates – for example, on the implementation of the New Deal or the integration of peace in the post-2015 agenda – or discuss peace-relevant developments in specific countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, Kenya, Mali and Myanmar. An eight-part essay series accompanied the programme of events held during our anniversary year in 2011. Overall, our authors agree that the diverse and independent contributions that the development community makes to peace must be made more visible – and that means engaging in dialogue with other policy communi-ties about this potential.

Communications: diversity under the spotlight

Publications

Help or Hindrance? Results-orientation in conflict-affected situationsFriEnt/KOFF-Working Paper Stefan Bächtold, Roland Dittli, Sylvia Servaes | KOFF, FriEnt | 2013

Verhandeln bevor es zu spät ist? Präventive Diplomatie 20 Jahre nach der Agenda für den FriedenDokumentation der Podiumsdiskussion zum Internationalen Friedenstag 2012, Brot für die Welt-EED, FES, FriEnt | 2013

FriEnt’s Tour d’Horizon of the Inclusion of Economic and Social Dimensions into Transitional JusticeSylvia Servaes | FriEnt | 2012

Legacies of Violence und die Arbeit mit „neuen Eliten“ in PostkonfliktsituationenDokumentation des FriEnt-Fachgesprächs am 11. Juni 2012Kathrin Lorenz, Marius Müller-Hennig | FriEnt | 2012

A New Deal for Fragile States: International Engagement after BusanWorkshop Report | 19 January 2012Marc Baxmann, Johannes Hamacher, Andreas Wittkowsky | FriEnt | 2012

Neuer Staat, endlich Frieden? Lehren des „Statebuilding“ vom Kosovo über Somaliland bis zum SüdsudanDokumentation der Podiumsdiskussion zum Internationalen Friedenstag 2011, EED, FES, FriEnt | 2012

Frieden und Entwicklung: Mit oder ohne Transitional Justice?Natascha Zupan | in: Andreas Heinemann-Grüder und Isabella Bauer (Hg): Zivile Konfliktbearbeitung: Vom Anspruch zur Wirklichkeit (2012)

Entwicklung in unsicheren Gefilden FriEnt Briefing 10/2011Marius Müller-Hennig, Bodo Schulze, Natascha Zupan | FriEnt | 2011

Democracy, Democratisation and Peace – Lessons from Recent ExperienceEssay by Dan Smith, International Alert | FriEnt | 2011

Land, Conflict and the Challenge of Pro-poor PeacebuildingEssay by Saturnino M. Borras Jr. and Jennifer C. Franco, Transnational Institute | FriEnt | 2011

Peacebuilding at the UN over the last 10 yearsEssay by Vanessa Wyeth, International Peace Institute | FriEnt | 2011

Fixing Obstacles Blocking a Multi-Stakeholder Approach to Peace and DevelopmentEssay by Prof. Lisa Schirch, Director of 3P Human Security: Partners for Peacebuilding Policy | FriEnt | 2011

Education and Peacebuilding: from ‘Conflict-Analysis’ to ‘Conflict Transformation’?Essay by Alan Smith, UNESCO Chair, University of Ulster | FriEnt | 2011

Linking Peacebuilding and Health in Post-Conflict SettingsEssay by Lisa J. Laplante, University of Connecticut | FriEnt | 2011

The EU and Conflict Prevention: A Ten Year AssessmentEssay by Dr Simon Duke, European Institute of Public Administra-tion | FriEnt | 2011

Challenges for Development-oriented Peace Work: Old and New Ways ForwardEssay by Natascha Zupan | FriEnt | 2011

Ägyptens steiniger Weg zu Frieden und EntwicklungSonderausgabe der FriEnt-Impulse | April 2011

Peacebuilding is Not a PuzzleNatascha Zupan | in: Wissenschaft & Frieden 2011-4

Photo: Christoph Krackhardt/Bread for the World

25

FriEnt Structure

25

On the occasion of FriEnt‘s 10th anniversary former and current members of the steering committee and the team met in Berlin. Photos: Thomas Ecke

Steering Committee

Member Deputy member

Bread for the World Dr Wolfgang Heinrich (Chair) Heiner Knauss (until October 2012)

BMZ Christine Toetzke (Chair) Gundula Weitz-Huthmann

GIZ Dr Roman Poeschke Dunja Brede

FES Jochen Steinhilber Armin Hasemann

hbs Steffen Heizmann Dr Kirsten Maas-Albert

KZE/Misereor Michael Hippler Norbert Dittrich

Civil Peace Service Group Bernd Rieche, AGDF Martin Vehrenberg, AGEH

Plattform ZKB/INEF Ulrich Frey, Plattform ZKB Dr Cornelia Ulbert, INEF

ZIF Dr Almut Wieland-Karimi Tobias Pietz

Team

Natascha Zupan Team Leader

Brigitte Kirschner Office Manager, Webmaster

Marc Baxmann Policy and Communication Officer

Anja Justen, Konsortium ZFD Indonesia, Education

Caroline Kruckow, Brot für die Welt South Caucasus, Land Conflicts

Christine Meissler, GIZ Colombia, Human Rights and Peacebuilding

Jana Mittag, hbs Democracy Promotion, Human Rights and Peacebuilding

Marius Müller-Hennig, FES UN, Peacebuilding and Security

Bodo Schulze, BMZ Middle East

Sylvia Servaes, KZE/Misereor Nepal, Transitional Justice

Angelika Spelten, Plattform ZKB/INEF Kenya, Conflict Prevention

Dr Andreas Wittkowsky, ZIF Peace Operations, Peacebuilding and Security

FriEnt is a working group of:

Bread for the World – Protestant Development ServiceFederal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES) Heinrich-Böll-Foundation (hbs)Misereor/Catholic Central Agency for Development Aid Civil Peace Service Group (CPS)Platform for Peaceful Conflict Management/Institute for Development and Peace (INEF)Center for International Peace Operations (ZIF)

Ziviler Friedensdienst Civil Peace ServiceWWWWeee dddonn’’t tturnn oourr bbacckss onn coonflicct.