Frient biennial report 2013 14 by Marc Baxmann

Biennial Report 2013-2014

Peace and Development

FriEnt

The Working Group on Peace and Development (FriEnt) is an association of nine governmental organisations, church development agencies, civil society networks, and political foundations. FriEnt aims to pool capacities, facilitate networking and collaboration, and contribute to conflict-sensitive development cooperation. FriEnt’s members are committed to working together to promote a range of approaches and highlight the importance of peacebuilding to policy-makers and the public at large. FriEnt‘s members are united by their great commitment to peace and development. They vary, however, in their size, mandate, international partners, projects and approaches. They 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’s members are: Bread for the World – Protestant Development Service | Center for International Peace Operations (ZIF) | Civil Peace Service Group (CPS) | 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)

Impressum © Working Group on Peace and Development (FriEnt) c/o GIZ Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 36 53113 Bonn Tel + 49 (0) 228 4460 3583 info@frient.de www.frient.de/en www.twitter.de/FriEnt_news Editors: Marc Baxmann, Natascha Zupan (V.i.S.d.P.) Assistant: Lisa Häberle Authors: Marc Baxmann, Anja Justen, Caroline Kruckow, Claudia Rolf, Bodo Schulze, Angelika Spelten, Sonja Vorwerk-Halve, Andreas Wittkowsky Layout: Claudia Oly Image editing: picture worx / Monika Bergmann Translation: Hillary Crowe Printing: dieUmweltDruckerei GmbH Carbon neutral printed on 100% recycled paper Number of copies: 500 Cover: Christof Krackhard/Bread for the World Picture credits p. 2-3: (from left) private sources (x2), Konstantin Börner, Aida Schievelbein, Konstantin Börner Disclaimer: The articles do not necessarily represent the opinion of the FriEnt member organisations. Bonn, August 2015

Contents

2 | Preface: Crises and Opportunities 3 | Editorial: It’s all Connected?! Devel opm ent a n d C o nf l i c t 4 6 8 10

| | | |

Strengthening the Political Dimension of Sustainable Development Education – Health – Social Protection: Key Areas for Peacebuilding Food Security in Fragile Settings: A World without Hunger in a World Full of Conflicts? Crises in the Middle East and North Africa: Development Cooperation in a Blind Alley?

Pea ceb u i l d i n g “ B eyo n d A i d ” 12 14 16 17

| Peacebuilding – A Future Global Responsibility | Natural Resources: Peacebuilding Potential in a Globalised World | Peacebuilding in Emerging Countries – In Focus: Indonesia | The Unresolved Conflicts in Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus: An Interconnected System

Qu o Va d i s Pea c eb u i l d i n g? 18 | Seizing Opportunities – Peacebuilding in a Complex World 20 | New Partnerships for Peace and Development: Are we all Pulling Together? 22 | Inclusion and Constructive State-Society Relations: Rethinking Participation? 24 | The 2014 Evaluation 25 | Publications 25 | FriEnt Structure (2013-2014)

P reface Michael Hippler and Martin Hoppe (right)

Crises and Opportunities

Dear readers, “Seizing opportunities” was the theme of FriEnt’s first Peacebuilding Forum, which took place in Berlin in May 2014. Given the headlines in 2013/2014, it was a somewhat optimistic title. After all, the last two years have been marked by escalating crises and discouraging developments: the conflict in Ukraine not only challenges the European peace order but also has implications for the conflicts in the South Caucasus. In Syria and Iraq, the situation has escalated further, while war and violence have erupted (again) in Gaza, South Sudan, the Central African Republic and many other regions. Organised crime, radicalisation and terrorism pose a threat to human security in many other regions of the world, including here in Germany. But despite – or perhaps because of – this situation, “seizing opportunities” is both motto and motivation for the members of the Working Group on Peace and Development (FriEnt). In the Working Group, we cooperate on finding answers to difficult questions: how can we identify pathways for constructive conflict transformation and peacebuilding and – particularly in view of the declining scope for action – keep these pathways open? Which alliances and partnerships are useful? What works, and where do the limits lie? In view of the crises throughout the world, engagement by FriEnt’s members is more important than ever, not only in their practical cooperation with local partners but also here in Germany, for peace is once again the focus of considerable public and political interest. At FriEnt, we aim to move beyond the current political agenda and, together, undertake in-depth analyses from which we draw conclusions of relevance to our

members’ work. In view of the dynamics of the various conflicts, this is an ongoing challenge, but it is indispensable if we are to learn from each other, act in a conflict-sensitive manner, and harness the potential for peace. We are delighted that the value-added generated by the Working Group was confirmed by the evaluation commissioned in May 2014. Through continuous dialogue and cooperation between state and civil society organisations, trust has increased, informal learning spaces outside the institutional framework have been established, and new access to a diverse range of actors has been created. The FriEnt team, comprising representatives of all our member organisations, acts as a bridge-builder and pool of experts in this context. In addition, through its various activities, including the new Peacebuilding Forum, FriEnt has made a valuable contribution to increasing the visibility of this thematic and policy area and to networking with international actors. Besides the FriEnt team, these successes are due in no small measure to Christine Toetzke and Wolfgang Heinrich, who co-chaired the Steering Committee for many years, and to whom we express our particular thanks. We look forward to continuing and developing our joint work on this basis. Aachen/Berlin, June 2015 Michael Hippler, Misereor Martin Hoppe, Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) Co-Chairs of the FriEnt Steering Committee

Edi tor i a l

It’s all Connected?!

Dear readers, We are delighted to present our 2013-2014 report and offer you insights into our work. The review is somewhat ambivalent, for these years were marked by two developments which we have explored intensively. On the one hand, the world appears to be sinking further into war and violence. The news is full of alarming reports – from Ukraine, the Middle East, Mali and South Sudan, to name only a few. At the same time, work continued on a new post-2015 agenda for sustainable development. Against the backdrop of the ongoing violent conflicts, there was a growing recognition that the new development framework must build a bridge between peace, development and sustainability. In order to not lose sight of the causes of conflict and violence, three challenges must be considered, which will feature prominently in peacebuilding and development in future and which also form the basic structure of our 2013-2014 report: 1. Efforts to end extreme poverty will increasingly focus on regions affected by conflict. Here, poverty and violence are particularly intractable: problems affecting peace and sustainable development are interconnected and cannot be viewed in isolation. In Chapter 1, we look at ways of working effectively in these situations. In these endeavours, some questions and challenges facing FriEnt members remain unresolved, notably which kind of engagement is effective in acute conflict situations. 2. Traditional forms of development cooperation are becoming less significant and new actors are entering the scene. As a result, Western paradigms of peacebuilding are increasingly being challenged. New conflict potential – resulting, for

example, from exclusion from social and economic development in emerging countries – requires new partnerships and networks. 3. In an economically, politically, socially and environmentally interconnected world, the causes of conflict can never be entirely local. The dynamics of violent conflict are influenced by regional and global factors. At the same time, conflicts have impacts on global developments. In light of these challenges, what does the future hold for peacebuilding? How can peacebuilding continue to make constructive contributions in a complex and interconnected world? On the one hand, our concern is that the current debate is focused too much on the symptoms of war and violence and their short-term management. Seemingly outdated aspects of peacebuilding, such as social cohesion, reconciliation and trust, should not, in our view, be consigned to the past but are prerequisites for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. On the other hand, we also recognise the need for new approaches and partnerships, and we explore this topic in the final chapter. FriEnt will continue to address these challenges in future. We would like to express our sincere thanks to our interview partners and to all those who have done so much to support us in recent years. We look forward to further intensive cooperation.

Natascha Zupan

Marc Baxmann

Coordinator

Policy and Communication Officer

Development an d C onflic t

Strengthening the Political Dimension of Sustainable Development

Development and Conflict The post-2015 agenda will inherit a Herculean task from the Millennium Development Goals: ending extreme poverty, which – the trends indicate – will increasingly be concentrated in conflict regions. Countries affected by conflict and violence are already lagging far behind the rest of the world in their progress towards the MDGs. Conflict and violence are therefore often described as the “last mile” in ending extreme poverty. A “business as usual” approach is not an option here. Instead, new approaches are needed in order to increase the effectiveness of development cooperation in fragile and conflict-affected states, break down silos between peacebuilding and development, and embed conflict sensitivity. However, it is important to recognise where the limits lie.

Complex problems – such as chronic poverty, marginalisation and structural exclusion of certain social groups – are primarily political in nature and cannot be resolved with “off the peg” technical measures. This was a key message from the first FriEnt Peacebuilding Forum, which took place in Berlin in May 2014. Even challenges which are seemingly technical – such as the provision of social services and management of natural resources – always have a political dimension. In fragile and conflict-affected countries in particular, development and peacebuilding practitioners are increasingly confronted with these wicked problems, which are characterised by ambivalence, insecurity and unpredictability. So what kind of approach may be appropriate in these contexts? Drawing inspiration from complexity theory, it was suggested at the FriEnt Peacebuilding Forum that external actors should facilitate and broker national and intra-societal peace processes rather than seeing themselves as problem-solvers. The starting point must be a shared understanding of the political interests of all the groups involved in the conflict and the

interrelationships between them. In this way, development cooperation can go beyond the do no harm principle and make positive contributions to a durable peace.

Results orientation: a problematical approach However, two FriEnt publications on impact assessment point out that results orientation in its currently practiced form is more of a hindrance than a help for achieving better results, largely because results orientation cannot do justice to the complexity of many situations. For example, while it is easy to quantify how many children have been vaccinated or enrolled in school, it is difficult to measure how many power relations or social relationships have been transformed. It is rarely considered, in this context, that social transformation is not a linear process but is multi-dimensional and unpredictable. Direct influence by a development or peacebuilding programme tends to be the exception rather than the rule.

D evel o p m ent a n d Conf l i ct A construction site in Kuajok, South Sudan. Photo: GIZ/Michael Tsegaye

Focus on local perspectives

FriEnt activities

Local actors should not only shape transformation processes themselves; they also have a much better understanding of the various stakeholders’ interrelationships and hidden agendas than external actors. Against this background, the findings of CDA’s “Time to Listen” project – presented and discussed at a FriEnt expert discussion in 2013 – are sobering: according to these findings, technical packages tend to be developed and delivered almost mechanically, with no account being taken of the need for adaptation to local contexts. The New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States, launched with great hopes in 2011, was meant to provide a remedy and usher in nothing less than a paradigm shift in the cooperation with fragile and conflict-affected countries, away from the traditional donor-recipient relationship towards aligning international support behind locally-led processes, more transparency and donor harmonisation. However, the New Deal’s potential has

A bar in Kpalimé, Togo. Photo: Helge Bendl/ Bread for the World

not been utilised to the full: this, at least, was the tenor of many inputs at various FriEnt events. As Hafeez Wani from the South Sudan NGO Forum explains in this interview, this is primarily due to the failure to adequately consider the New Deal’s political dimensions: Why has the New Deal failed to match up to expectations in South Sudan? It must be said that South Sudan has been characterized by numerous factors impeding the attainment of sustainable peace that existed even before the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed. The New Deal as a peacebuilding and statebuilding initiative cannot wholly be held responsible for failing to bring sustainable peace to South Sudan. However, it did not manage to deliver what it was intended for. This was partly because of the lack of donor, government and society buy in. Inadequate political dialogue among these stakeholders was a major element that constrained the ability of the New Deal to achieve its desired goals. Therefore the political will suffered a great deal although being a necessary ingredient for the New

Development effectiveness in fragile and conflict-affected countries and the requisite linkage of processes were the focus of interest at the following FriEnt events: The EU, conflict prevention and peacebuilding (October 2013) International Dialogue, New Deal and the Post-2015 Development Agenda – Adequate responses to greater complexity? (Peacebuilding Forum 2014) A New Deal for the Peacebuilding Commission? (November 2014) Human rights and peacebuilding: Joined-up thinking – and action! (December 2014) FriEnt is also a member of the Civil Society Platform for Peacebuilding and Statebuilding (CSPPS), a South-North coalition of peacebuilding organisations that coordinates and supports civil society participation in the International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding (IDPS).

Deal to work in a country like South Sudan that has very complex politics and historical hiccups haunting its governance system and politics. In addition, the New Deal was unable to accurately diagnose the true drivers of conflict and fragility due to the weaknesses in the tools and methodology applied. It focused more on the technical processes such as the fragility assessment than meaningful and honest dialogue at the grassroots level and among wielders of conflict. How can the political dimensions of the New Deal, such as inclusiveness, transparency and accountability, be strengthened during its implementation? Bringing the political dimensions back to the New Deal implementation requires renewed commitment and drive from the donors, g7+ countries and civil society. The active engagement of senior level members of parliament, judiciary, legal or foreign affairs ministries would go a long way in strengthening political will both by the donors and g7+ countries by ensuring that the debate moves beyond technical processes and more towards policy and political dialogue. Donors and g7+ countries need to invest in the development of internal policy guidelines to frame their engagement on the New Deal, provide clarity on the value of the New Deal and how to implement it amidst the complexities that characterize post-conflict countries. But civil society also needs to clarify the role that it is willing and able to play in implementing the New Deal and to what extent it can and how they can independently contribute to the success of the New Deal. What is the role of local civil society? Civil society has an important role to play in educating the citizens about their roles in the New Deal implementation and their responsibility to the state as well as the state‘s responsibility to them. Secondly NGOs can play a fundamental role in engaging the private sector and pulling them in more as key players in the New Deal implementation particularly around enhancing sustainability of locally led processes. Local civil society‘s role of strengthening the political dialogue with its governments can benefit from Northern civil society who has better access to donor governments and their foreign affairs agencies.

Development an d C onflic t

Education – Health – Social Protection: Key Areas for Peacebuilding For the 1.5 billion people living in fragile and conflict-affected countries, access to education, adequate health care and social protection is often no more than a dream. Fragile states are unable or unwilling to perform their core functions and provide social services. This weakens public trust in the institutions of governance. In these situations, development cooperation faces particular challenges, which cannot be overcome with technical measures and a “business as usual” approach alone. Peacebuilding, however, often ignores the role of the social sectors and therefore also the public’s immediate needs, focusing instead on establishing effective institutions, supporting electoral processes or implementing reforms in the security and justice sectors. One of the recurrent themes arising in FriEnt’s expert discussions and country round tables is the untapped potential of closer linkage between peacebuilding and the social sectors. The international frameworks for peacebuilding, such as the World Bank’s 2011 World Development Report and the New Deal, also emphasise the peacebuilding potential of social services: access to adequate and good-quality social services meets basic needs, remedies injustice and helps to defuse or, indeed, overcome inequalities as causes of conflict. Development-oriented peacebuilding offers considerable potential for practical cooperation in this area: • Effective and equitable delivery of social services by the state in immediate post-conflict situations can act as a peace dividend, signalling a return to “normality” and reducing tensions. It can also help to build trust in the state and increase its legitimacy in the public’s eyes. • Effective, conflict-sensitive and equitable management of social services, along with inclusive and transparent access, can increase accountability and address the causes of conflict.

• The provision of social services can make a significant and targeted contribution to social cohesion among diverse groups. Development programmes can become platforms for dialogue, cooperation, reconciliation and social transformation. However, social services can also heighten the potential for conflict and fragility, if they create or worsen horizontal inequalities or deepen social divisions by perpetuating discrimination and marginalisation. To prevent this from occurring, it is important to consider the following questions: what role did social service provision play before, during and after the armed conflict? Did inequitable access worsen the potential for conflict? What was the role of the state’s institutions during the conflict? Furthermore, armed conflict can have serious impacts on social service infrastructure, damaging not only the amenities themselves but also causing distrust and loss of government legitimacy. So it is important to focus on strengthening the relationship between state and society as well as intra- and inter-community relations.

“We need sector-specific conflict analyses”

Interview with Dr Rüdiger Blumör, GIZ Project Manager, Education for Social Cohesion in Sri Lanka In your view, what are the most important contributions that education can make to peacebuilding? As education systems are generally a mirror image of society, education can pro-actively address structural causes of conflicts, such as social segregation. In Sri Lanka, for example, only 5 per cent of state schools provide inclusive, multilingual education for diverse ethnic groups. So instead of promoting

D evel o p m ent a n d Conf l i ct A health centre in Freetown, Sierra Leone. Photo: UN Photo/Martine Perret

national identity, a school system like this fosters group identities, increasing tensions and vulnerability to politicisation. If educational opportunities are determined by ethnicity, religion or language, then the priority, in conflict or post-conflict settings, must be to promote justice in education by providing equitable access for all social groups. This means exploring the opportunities for and limits to structural reforms in education policy. Promoting inclusive schools or providing religious education that focuses on teaching about religions rather than teaching one particular religion plays an important role. Schemes such as school encounter programmes can promote peaceful social relations, but they can only bridge structural policy gaps to a limited extent.

FriEnt activities As a key example of the importance of social services for peacebuilding, a working group of FriEnt members considered how peacebuilding and conflict prevention can be integrated into the education sector. An event on the same topic also took place within the framework of the Peacebuilding Forum: The renaissance of social services for peacebuilding (Peacebuilding Forum â&#x20AC;&#x201C; May 2014)

Either way, for people-centred approaches to have stabilising and peacebuilding effects, they must be conflict-sensitive in design. So when providing educational opportunities, for example for Syrian refugees in neighbouring countries, it is important to take account of feedback effects on the local community. What kind of educational opportunities are available to local children, for example? What needs to change in the promotion of education in fragile and conflict-affected countries? General context and conflict analyses are too abstract and do not go far enough in investigating how an education system works or in identifying the role of education providers and pinpointing opportunities and entry points for transformative interventions. Sector-specific conflict analyses are therefore required to facilitate the understanding that in Sri Lanka, for example, the main issue is not access to schooling; itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s about improving the understanding of educational justice issues. If schools are segregated on the basis of ethnicity and language, they tend to promote group rather than national identities, and in these circumstances, competition for the privilege of a place at school and access to further education acquires an ethnic dimension. Sector-specific analyses may, however, raise the issue of how to manage problems which are sometimes beyond the scope of an education programme. For example, should support be provided for the establishment of ethnically and linguistically inclusive schools in all provinces, as recommended at the national level, if the modest number of these schools suggests that the deeply rooted segregating structures in the school system are being reproduced? The potential and value-added created by sector-specific analyses in the education system lie in recognising these issues as the basis for context-specific and relevant education programmes that build peace. At present, there is considerable additional scope to develop these analyses; there is also the challenge of securing the requisite resources and mobilising expertise and capacities and building them into our processes.

In class: Zaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;atari Refugee Camp in Jordan. Photo: Act Alliance/Paul Jeffrey

Development an d C onflic t

Food Security in Fragile Settings: A World without Hunger in a World Full of Conflicts? The post-2015 Agenda is meant to mark the start of the final round in the global campaign against hunger and malnutrition. In order to beat hunger by 2030, however, lessons must be learned from the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). There is, in fact, substantial progress to report here: worldwide, the number of hungry people has fallen in recent years. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 25 countries have succeeded in halving the number of undernourished people since 1990. But despite these partial successes, there are still 795 million undernourished people in the world today. Sustainable progress on ending hunger is increasingly under threat from armed conflicts and other crises. This was not only evident in “crisis year” 2014. The World Bank had already pointed out in its 2011 World Development Report that the development progress achieved in the last 30 years had bypassed the 1.5 billion people living in conflict regions. No low-income state affected by armed conflict, civil war or fragility has achieved a single MDG. Millions of people from these regions are fleeing from violence and devastation, hunger and poverty. Many also face localised food insecurity. Against this background, FriEnt has frequently investigated the links between food security and conflicts. Food insecurity and the hunger associated with it may be triggered by war, displacement, expulsion and structural violence, and are therefore symptoms of violence and inequality. However, food insecurity, hunger and inequitable access to natural resources can also be the cause of conflicts and a trigger for violence. Efforts to address food insecurity must deal with intra-societal tensions and injustice and therefore always take place in an environment fraught with conflict. If existing conflicts are not

taken into account, food security measures can unwittingly lead to an escalation of violence. On the other hand, peacebuilding initiatives that fail to take account of affected communities’ living conditions, particularly their food security and access to/use of natural resources, can contribute very little to sustainable conflict transformation and ending violence. A world without hunger is possible, but only if food security responses and humanitarian aid are designed in a conflictsensitive manner and are combined with peacebuilding measures. This requires diverse alliances and cooperation between development and peacebuilding practitioners, but must also involve other actors and policy fields such as trade and foreign policy. Preventing violence and combating hunger are among the most urgent challenges of our time and require a coherent approach.

“Breaking the vicious circle of hunger and violence” Interview with Cornelia Füllkrug-Weitzel, President of Bread for the World and Diakonie-Katastrophenhilfe What are the greatest challenges to food security at present? We have to recognise that food security is not only a technical issue; it is always a political issue as well. Almost without exception, the current humanitarian crises – whether in Iraq or Syria, Ukraine, South Sudan, the Horn of Africa or the Central African Republic, or the Ebola crises in West Africa – are happening in an environment of violence and fragile statehood. In these situations, food security per se is not a form of peacebuilding, for there is also a risk that it will create further conflicts or worsen and prolong existing ones. Unfortunately, due to the extremely challenging operational

D evel o p m ent a n d Conf l i ct South Sudan: The conflict makes delivering food aid more difficult. Photo: WFP/Philipp Herzog

conditions, there is rarely enough time to analyse the conflict context in sufficient depth to ensure that food security measures are conflict-sensitive or to build in conflict management strategies. Which other factors, besides conflict and fragility, cause food insecurity, and what should be done to address them? There are many different risks to food security. Climate change alone is putting many countries under great pressure to adapt in order to safeguard their agricultural production in the long term. Other factors that come into play are the global rise in meat consumption and the demand for biofuels. Often, it’s a vicious circle: global trends and market dynamics worsen existing distribution problems and pose risks to local communities’ social cohesion. This in turn can worsen conflict dynamics and have an impact on food security. The people affected rarely have a political voice; they also lack the capacities to drive forward constructive solutions, and they do not have

Dr Wolfgang Jamann (Welthungerhilfe), Dr Imme Scholz (German Development Institute) and Ralf Südhoff (World Food Programme) discuss food security and peacebuilding on the International Peace Day in 2014. Photo: Marius Müller-Hennig

FriEnt activities For some years, FriEnt, the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung and Bread for the World – Protestant Development Service have organised an annual public panel discussion to mark the International Peace Day, focusing on topical issues in peace and development policy. The theme of the 2014 event was: A world without hunger in a world full of conflicts? Challenges and opportunities at the interface between food security and peacebuilding (September 2014) FriEnt also participates in the Working Group on Global Food Security and made an active contribution to the Policies against Hunger Conference hosted by the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture.

For example, our civil society partners in Sierra Leone are working to alleviate the humanitarian problems in the aftermath of the Ebola crisis, but they are also attempting to promote food security by supporting local smallholders, actively contributing to national debates about agricultural and land policy, facilitating agricultural investment projects, and calling for the implementation of international guidelines and respect for the human right to food. At the same time, they are working with stakeholders at grassroots level, offering training in conflict management and organising legal advice for people who have been driven off their land. Our task is to build the capacities of these partners and support their comprehensive initiatives. At the same time, we also need to be working to promote binding international frameworks and demanding compliance with them from policy-makers and companies operating in the food sector. Conflict sensitivity is a key prerequisite in this context and is essential in overcoming hunger.

sufficient livelihood security to break out of this vicious circle. Their economic, social and political marginalisation and lack of participation are therefore key drivers of hunger and worsening social conflicts. A world without hunger in a world full of conflicts – how would that work? Development always takes place amidst social frictions and associated conflicts. From our perspective, these conflicts are not negative per se; on the contrary, they are necessary in order to effect change. But non-violence is key, so in order to resolve these conflicts non-violently, food security and peacebuilding must go hand in hand. International actors must pay particular heed to local initiatives by stakeholders who are familiar with the local context in all its complexity and who can precisely identify the potential not only for conflict but also for peace.

Development an d C onflic t

Crises in the Middle East and North Africa: Development Cooperation in a Blind Alley? FriEnt-Aktivitäten The Arab Spring fuelled hopes of political reforms in many countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). But almost five years on, the picture has fractured, with war, violence and eroding statehood, the worst refugee crisis in the United Nations’ history, the rise of geopolitics and proxy conflicts between regional powers, a resurgence of authoritarianism and an increase in religious violence, terror and sectarianism – to say nothing of the continued absence of a Middle East peace process. Only Tunisia seems able to continue with its peaceful transformation, despite setbacks caused by terror attacks.

Unpredictability and complexity In light of this situation, self-critical discussion is needed on realistic options for action and goals in a context in which clear points of orientation are lacking. This means recognising the limited scope for action and the absence of simple solutions, and communicating this effectively in the political arena and to partners. This was confirmed by participants at various FriEnt events, where the discussion focused, inter alia, on the challenge of keeping pace with developments in the countries themselves while managing additional extra-budgetary resources and continuing the cooperation with partners. Hardly surprisingly, it was reported that considerable resources are currently being channelled into crisis management, leaving little time for strategic debate and reflection. And yet the new complexity requires an intelligent approach to uncertainties and unplanned developments, and this can only be achieved in the medium term with additional professional and institutional resources. At political and strategic level, this means identifying the scope for and limits to action, as well as interests, goals, strategies and mechanisms, so that long-term political issues such as conflict management and early action move into the foreground.

Blindtextappraisal Kasten Critical of development policy options

The acute human suffering witnessed in the region makes it imperative to overcome political and conceptual silo thinking: the refugee crisis sends an urgent message that more coherence is needed between humanitarian aid, development and peacebuilding. This includes openly addressing possible conflicts of interest with foreign and security policy, e.g. on restoring stability and combating terrorism, and raising difficult questions, such as how to deal with Islamists. As regards the local capacity to act, participants at the FriEnt events agreed that building networks, relationships and context-specific knowledge is key in gaining a better understanding of events, local actors’ involvement and our own role in the system. Do no harm checks are important in avoiding social polarisation and identifying potential for peace. However, many issues relating to the practical work to be undertaken in situations of war remain unresolved. A discussion about these key issues – also from a development policy perspective – is needed in light of political aspirations for Germany to take on more responsibility.

What is left of the peaceful protests? Despite war and violence, there is still positive potential, such as networking, a capacity to mobilise and a heightened political awareness among the people living in these countries. Peacebuilding that focuses on the long term should build on this potential and support policy forums and initiatives that aim to overcome the causes of conflict. Partnership-based, process-oriented approaches which break out of the traditional North-South and donor-recipient dichotomies will be crucial to their success and to our own credibility.

D evel o p m ent a n d Conf l i ct Progress has stalled in many cases … Photo: Schliack/laif

“We should avoid any fantasies of omnipotence”

FriEnt activities

Interview with Dr Christiane Bögemann-Hagedorn, Head of Directorate for South-Eastern and Eastern Europe, South Caucasus, North Africa, Middle East and Latin America at the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ)

Opportunities, limits and ways forward in development cooperation in contexts of transition and acute conflicts were addressed at round tables, with specific reference to Syria and Egypt:

Violent conflicts seem to have become the norm in development cooperation – what is the BMZ’s response? In the Middle East and North Africa and in Eastern Europe, we are dealing with major regional crises. In addition, there are the frozen conflicts in Moldova and the South Caucasus, for example. In the Balkans, too, there is ongoing potential for conflict.That’s why Eastern Europe – and not only Ukraine – needs a high level of attention from development policy. Nor should we lose sight of the Middle East conflict, where there is a growing risk of escalation, possibly fuelling further violence, also in the IS context.

Peacebuilding responses and potential initiatives for Syria (June 2013) The transformation process: the role of civil society actors and opportunities for external support in Egypt (September 2013) Internal project and partner mapping for the Syria crisis (November 2013) Conflict sensitivity and promotion of civil society in Syria (April 2014) Whither Egypt? Assessments from local partners (April 2014) Funding mechanisms and programmatic challenges for the work in Syria and its neighbours (December 2014)

delivered by civil society. An infrastructure programme with a budget of 1.7 billion euros for 2015-2018 is investing in stability, mainly in local and social infrastructure and vocational training, in Ukraine, the MENA region and West Africa. In response to the Syria crisis, with 12 million refugees and internally displaced persons at present, the German Government has spent around one billion euros on humanitarian assistance since 2012.

High hopes at the start four years ago ... Photo: Arne Hoel/World Bank

From my perspective, the trends in the Middle East and North Africa do not symbolise the failure of development policy. Development cooperation cannot replace social development and political processes in the partner countries; it can only monitor, facilitate and support them. Our cooperation with this region focuses on key aspects of conflict prevention and stabilisation, such as a sustainable supply and management of water, which is a scarce conflict resource, and promoting economic development, thus creating jobs. German Development Minister Dr Gerd Müller has launched a special initiative for North Africa and the Middle East, which aims to promote regional stability and has a budget of 200 million euros for 2014-2016, with a further 100 million earmarked for 2016. It funds stabilisation measures, employment promotion and democracy-building, including projects

What role does development policy play in tandem with other policy fields? We shouldn’t just focus on development policy. The regional scope of these crises shows that they create challenges for other policy fields as well, especially for foreign and security policy. And the refugee crisis makes it clear that we must take action beyond these policy fields; for example, home affairs policy has a role to play if the EU and the international community want to offer these refugees real prospects in the medium term. The BMZ therefore works closely on a strong foundation of trust with other ministries, mainly the Federal Foreign Office. We have developed specific formats for regular interdepartmental dialogue. In my view, development policy has a key role to play in the fields of prevention and stabilisation, as well as in preparing for reconstruction. In conflict settings, too, we can in some cases help to maintain existing structures in order to avoid a Libya-type scenario when peace is restored. I think that we have addressed the massive challenges and learning processes as effectively as possible. Nonetheless, the daily reality of crises teaches us a valuable lesson: where development policy is concerned, we should avoid any fantasies of omnipotence.

Pea cebuilding “ B eyon d A id ”

Headline Peacebuilding – A Global Responsibility

Kapitel Peacebuilding “beyond aid” International Blindtext Einleitung cooperation for peace and development is undergoing a profound change. Not only will extreme poverty be increasingly concentrated in conflict regions; widening inequality, lack of participation and organised crime are jeopardising peaceful development and social cohesion in middle and high income countries as well. In an interconnected world, the potential for and the causes of conflict are global in nature and require global solutions. “Beyond aid” has emerged as a collective term for these challenges. At FriEnt’s many round tables and expert discussions, we look at how these trends are impacting on peacebuilding.

Land grabbing, the refugee crisis, organised crime and new forms of violence, the financial crisis, climate change, the resurgence of geostrategic conflict, radicalisation – there was no shortage of bad news and worrying developments over the last two years. And as diverse as these phenomena may be, they all have one thing in common: they have a global dimension and the potential to impact on local conflict dynamics, not only in fragile and conflict-affected countries but also in middle and high income countries. In an interconnected world, the global challenges facing conflict prevention and management are becoming ever more pressing. The dynamics of armed conflict elsewhere in the world are influenced in part by our own consumption and production methods – and at the same time, armed conflicts have effects on sustainable development in other countries. The multitude of new challenges, but also the resurgence of

others which, it was thought, had been overcome long ago, affect German society as well and cause feelings of disquiet. So it is no longer useful to distinguish between peacebuilding and sustainable development policy; on the contrary, these two policy fields condition and complement each other. In the debate about the post-2015 agenda, too, which FriEnt has followed attentively in the last two years, it quickly became clear that only a comprehensive and universal approach can do justice to complex problems. The post-2015 agenda not only brings together the social, economic, environmental and political dimensions of sustainability, but will also trigger a further paradigm shift: the Millennium Development Goals were primarily intended for developing countries, whereas the new agenda will apply to every country and aspires to be universal. Peace thus becomes a shared global goal – and peacebuilding a global responsibility.

Pea ceb u i l d i n g “ B eyo nd Ai d” Globalisation affects complex conflicts: coltan mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Photo: CC-BY-NC Responsible Sourcing Network/Flickr

“Responsible peacebuilding policy begins at home”

FriEnt-Aktivitäten FriEnt activities

Interview with Michael Hippler, Head of the Catholic Central Agency for Development Aid at the Catholic Development Agency Misereor, on peacebuilding in a complex and globalised world.

The challenges Blindtext Kastenfacing peacebuilding in a changing world and the question of how to include peace in the post-2015 agenda were discussed at the following FriEnt events:

In the last two years, there has been a great deal of talk about Germany’s new responsibility. What does this mean, in your view, as regards crises and the future global agenda? The speed and intensity with which conflicts are increasing and the complexity and sheer number of actors involved mean that we must start with one fundamental new insight: assuming responsibility involves a continuous process of dialogue and, not least, visible good will to engage for global peace. Unfortunately, even though 70 years have passed since the end of the Second World War, Germany still lacks a corresponding peace vision. On the contrary, the outside world tends to be viewed

A rickshaw driver in Kolkata, India. Photo: Bruno Morandi/laif

as a threat rather than as a potential partner for cooperation in the response to global challenges. But responsibility begins at home: are our climate policies, trade, resource consumption and arms exports really so responsible that they do not harm anyone else? Assuming responsibility also means showing solidarity with the victims of conflict. Our current response to refugees, however, generally means leaving the task to neighbouring countries that are already overstretched. So we ourselves are far away from a responsible peacebuilding policy. Civil conflict management and conflict prevention are also noticeably under-resourced compared with military and humanitarian post-conflict recovery.

Daring more human rights, justice and peace – how does the HLP report deal with the gaps in the MDGs? (Workshop at the conference “Shaping the future together: The Post-2015 Agenda – Dialogue with civil society”, June 2013) It’s politics, stupid! What role does governance play in the post-2015 agenda, and how can its implementation be monitored? (Workshop at the conference “Shaping the future together: The Post-2015 Agenda – Dialogue with civil society”, June 2013) New responsibility – new pathways? Peacebuilding in the 21st century (FriEnt Peacebuilding Forum, May 2014) The final run-up to the Post-2015 Agenda: is the integration of peaceful and inclusive societies and good governance possible? (October 2014)

What do you hope the post-2015 agenda will contribute to peacebuilding? The current UN process shows that a comprehensive development and sustainability agenda cannot be separated from peace. Peacebuilding is not simply one dimension among many; it is a factor which must be considered every step of the way. My hope is that more consideration will be given to the impacts of globalised processes on local situations. For example, drug consumption in developed societies causes gang rivalry and conflicts between powerful criminal cartels in countries such as Mexico. The coalitions between mining companies and local governments to maximise short-term profits result in reckless exploitation of natural resources, with questionable environmental outcomes and massive human rights abuses. Here, the international community must redesign the rules on corporate rights and its own responsibility. I want the climate conference in Paris to deliver clear reduction commitments from countries with high carbon emissions, as a visible sign of responsibility. What are the challenges facing civil society in this context? The claims that civil society has a vital role to play are ubiquitous, but in reality, there is still a lack of appreciation of what it’s really about. Civil society is, by its very nature, diverse, and it is this diversity that should be appreciated and respected, for it allows for the inclusion of a range of interests into efforts to deal with conflict. However, we are constantly encountering situations in which social protest is criminalised and organisations are prevented from registering, funding is obstructed, and there is no access to the media, etc. What is needed, therefore, is a global agenda for the recognition of diversity and forms of civil society participation. Within civil society, there is a wealth of expertise on global issues, which could be utilised more systematically. Here, there also needs to be more networking among these organisations.

Pea cebuilding “ B eyon d A id ”

Natural Resources: Peacebuilding Potential Hedline in a Globalised World According to the 2014 Conflict Barometer produced by the Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research, a great many intra-state armed conflicts are linked to the global competition for natural resources. These consist, on the one hand, of extractive resources whose production relies on mining operations, and, on the other, of natural resources such as water and land for food production, living space and industry. Global trends such as the expansion of world trade, population and economic growth, environmental degradation and overexploitation, changing consumption patterns, global energy hunger and, not least, climate change worsen the competition over access to and control of natural resources. The debate about the post-2015 agenda and universal sustainable development goals has made it clear that globalisation can also influence the risk of conflict and fragility. Local conflict dynamics are crucially influenced by global factors and cannot be managed solely within national borders. Speculation-driven price fluctuations on the world markets for cereals, biofuels, oil and wood contribute, directly or indirectly, to instability and food bottlenecks in vulnerable regions. However, the fragility of the countries that supply many valuable resources is also striking: for example, current data on major land investments show that large-scale land acquisitions by domestic and foreign investors are mainly taking place in conflict and post-conflict settings (e.g. Sudan and South Sudan, Sierra Leone and Liberia) and in countries where local communities’ land rights are not secure and people displaced by land conflicts are often the victims of violence (e.g. Cambodia). Major infrastructural projects and dams are also being planned and implemented in conflict-prone regions.

Sustainable engagement for peacebuilding should therefore focus more strongly on the negative impacts of global consumption and production patterns on local conflicts. It should also feed into the international debates about the management of natural resources and share its expertise. Global guidelines, such as the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security, endorsed by the FAO’s Committee on World Food Security (CFS) in May 2012, set out principles to be upheld by states and civil society, as well as by business enterprises. Like the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, for example, these are important tools which peacebuilding practitioners have tended to overlook; as a consequence, their contribution to the development of these guidelines has been inadequate.

Think glocal, act glocal The management of natural resources is crucially important for food security and for economic and agricultural development. However, it is also linked to demand for renewable energies and measures to combat climate change. Mismanagement of natural resources can thus have very severe social, environmental and economic consequences at local and global level. The resource curse is all too familiar: over the past decade, developing countries which lack resource wealth have made much faster development progress for the benefit of their populations than those regarded as resource-rich. Conflicts and social discord, corruption and nepotism are commonplace in resource-rich regions. Politics and the private sector have a key role to play, as has civil society, in the peaceful and transparent manage-

Pea ceb u i l d i n g “ B eyo nd Ai d” Land grabbing in Cambodia. Photo: Jens Berger/Flickr

ment of conflicts over the production and sharing of resource wealth and in promoting sustainable and equitable solutions.

FriEnt-Aktivitäten FriEnt activities

Natural resources, their management and the use of the products manufactured from them create potential for further conflict. However, according to Marion Regina Müller, Director of the Heinrich Böll Foundation’s Pakistan/Afghanistan Regional Office, they can also make an active contribution to peacebuilding: “On the issue of natural resource management in particular, binding and effective rules on their use and distribution are needed. In Afghanistan, control over land and its management as a resource are extremely important to local people, as are infrastructure and water availability issues. Particular account must be taken of the specific local context. The role of women in rural regions is of key importance in relation to resource management and peacebuilding alike. Local mechanisms must be strengthened and support provided for appropriate capacity building in order to help establish a more

FriEnt members Blindtext Kasten held various expert discussions and workshops to discuss land investments and land rights in fragile settings, reparation issues, and the natural resource management/ peacebuilding nexus. Topics included: Securing land rights in Cambodia II and III (February 2013/ November 2014) Land grabbing in fragile and conflict-affected contexts (March 2013) Investments in conflict settings (March 2013) Conflicts over land: dispute resolution and de-escalation (June 2013) Reparations, land and natural resources (February 2014) Improving natural resource management for peacebuilding (Peacebuilding Forum, May 2014) FriEnt also participates in the Land Working Group set up by the Working Group on Global Food Security, in which the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) engage in dialogue on land issues with civil society.

creating linkage between peacebuilding strategies and investment in natural resources, and with the energy sector and business. At the international level, more efforts are needed in order to regulate resource markets and related financial flows and to establish global rules for international resource companies. At the same time, local development actors must have more scope to tailor-make solutions so that their programmes in the natural resources sector have peacebuilding effects in accordance with the do no harm principle. Peace does not happen of its own accord; instead, it must be brought about through the concerted efforts of a range of stakeholders in a process that is inevitably laborious and involves many small steps. A reservoir near Khanabad, Afghanistan. Photo: Omar Sayami - sayami.de

equitable system and achieve long-term solutions to the causes of conflict, thus helping to reduce violence. Natural resources and their use and the sharing of the income and profits that they generate are an essential element of a peace strategy for Afghanistan and must be actively integrated into peacebuilding programmes and resource management.” Establishing natural resources as pillars of peacebuilding takes more than just economic development and civil society engagement at all levels, however. The private sector, investors and economic and financial actors outside the traditional development community all have a role to play in actively

Pea cebuilding “ B eyon d A id ”

Jakarta, Indonesia: a stark contrast between rich and poor. Photo: Eric Martin/Le Figaro Magazine/laif

Peacebuilding in Emerging Countries In Focus: Indonesia FriEnt activities Peace and development are not only at risk in a dwindling group of least developed countries. The five armed conflicts which claimed the largest number of lives in 2014 occurred in Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Nigeria and Ukraine – all of them middle income countries. In many emerging countries, structural, cultural and direct violence routinely occurs, for many different reasons: rapid economic growth often worsens inequalities and is accompanied by rising corruption. Exclusion from social and economic development and blocked communication channels between state and society worsen the potential for conflict and, in many places, lead to social unrest. Urban violence is a growing problem for human security in many countries and blurs the boundaries between organised crime and armed conflict. But why is the risk of conflict in middle income countries so often ignored during the development of peacebuilding and conflict management strategies, and why is the potential for peace not being utilised? At a time of global power shifts, when emerging countries are becoming increasingly important as partners in managing global challenges, the question of coherence and integration of conflict sensitivity into cooperation arises – especially in policy areas “beyond aid” and in relation to private sector engagement. In our interview, Dr Ulrich Dornberg, Misereor’s Indonesia expert, explains how credible and coherent engagement for peacebuilding and conflict management might look. Indonesia is an emerging country in transition: but do you see any potential for conflict? Despite everything that Indonesia has achieved, the widening gap between rich and poor, legal instability and a culture of impunity, worsening conflicts over natural resources and land rights, religious radicalisation, and access to and quality of education are just some of the many challenges to a durable

State and civil society engagement in the forestry and climate sectors in the context of development cooperation with Indonesia (February 2014)

peace and sustainable development that we, as a Catholic development agency, identify in Indonesia. What are the challenges facing external actors? It is essential to respect the self-confidence and autonomy of Indonesian stakeholders. Only if it is made clear that they have a vested interest in implementing international standards – in resource and religious conflicts, for example – can any impact be achieved. This can only happen from within Indonesian society itself, which is why civil society’s scope should not be curtailed but must continue to be expanded. In order to respond to the often complex local situations, therefore, dialogue between state and civil society actors, coupled with diversity of access and entry points, has an important and constructive role to play. Where do you see scope for constructive contributions in this situation? Building local communities’ self-organisation capacities and raising awareness of their rights and opportunities for participation are very important elements in strengthening the rule of law and resolving local conflicts based on a fair balance of interests. For their part, state actors can promote and drive this process forward through political dialogue, by emphasising good governance and by appropriately involving civil society. So I think it is important not to draft any new sectorspecific blueprints – for security or justice sector reform, for example – in relation to engagement in emerging countries, but to ensure that the specific challenges and local perspectives are the starting point.

Pea ceb u i l d i n g “ B eyo nd Ai d”

OSCE election observation in Ukraine. Photo: OSCE/Michael Forster Rothbart

The Unresolved Conflicts in Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus: An Interconnected System FriEnt activities Among the participants at various FriEnt events on the unresolved conflicts in the South Caucasus, there was consensus that conflict resolution and transformation in the region has not become any easier. Firstly, authoritarian tendencies have increased almost everywhere, narrowing the scope for civil society peace initiatives. Secondly, it is becoming increasingly clear that intra- and inter-state conflicts in Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus are an interconnected system in which political conflicts over Russian hegemony in the post-Soviet space are negatively reinforced. At a South Caucasus round table in July 2014, the FriEnt members therefore considered the implications of the Ukraine crisis for the conflict situation in the South Caucasus. The Ukrainian President’s abrupt departure after four months of Euromaidan protests, followed by Russia’s lightning annexation of Crimea and armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine, posed a challenge to the European security order that extends far beyond Ukraine itself – and one which hardly anyone would have considered possible, let alone probable. As if under a magnifying glass, this conflict and the spill-over from its accompanying propaganda have clearly revealed the function of the unresolved (so called ‘frozen’) conflicts in the frame of Russia’s overly assertive claims for its “zone of special interest”. Thus, it is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve a settlement of the conflict through adjustments of elite and public interests in the territories concerned. However, it has also become clear that the Partnership for Modernisation, a central paradigm of the pan-European peace order, has been damaged as well. With Russia in particular, hopes of peaceful transformation through economic integration have been dashed, and this in turn has had negative feedback effects on the policies pursued by the EU via its Eastern Partnership initiative and especially the offer of association agreements. It is still unclear whether another paradigm – besides contain-

Nagorno-Karabakh – Perspectives on conflict prevention and peacebuilding (February 2013) Engagement in and/or with the conflict regions in the South Caucasus – new scope in the wake of the elections? (December 2013) What does the Ukraine crisis mean for the conflict situation in the South Caucasus? (July 2014)

ment and deterrence – will take the place of the Partnership for Modernisation; after all, it takes two to tango. In Ukraine, according to Tobias Pietz from the Center for International Peace Operations (ZIF), the greatest challenge, at present, is to strengthen the country’s stability without jettisoning the liberation agenda that was the hallmark of Euromaidan: “If a renewed military escalation can be countered successfully, then a well-coordinated and coherent approach involving civil mechanisms – from international diplomacy and Contact Group meetings to sanctions, OSCE and EU missions and humanitarian assistance and, last but not least, development cooperation – is indispensable.” Development cooperation that aims to build peace in the region faces major challenges: first of all, any support is deeply political and has the potential to worsen – or to be exploited in – internal resistance and power struggles. Close coordination with other actors is therefore a key prerequisite. Secondly, projects which expressly focus on peacebuilding, based on social dialogue or an appraisal of history, and indeed the work of civil society organisations more generally, require patience and persistence if they are to (re)build the trust which has been lost and which is currently being systematically undermined by conflict parties with vested interests. However, this trust-building must not expose partners to additional risks.

Q uo Vadis Peaceb u ild in g?

Seizing Opportunities – Peacebuilding in a Complex World

Quo Vadis Peacebuilding? The two previous chapters reveal the range of challenges facing peacebuilding and development – from the need for new approaches in fragile and conflict-affected countries to conflict risks in emerging economies and the management of global causes of conflict. Given the breadth of these challenges, what does the future hold for peacebuilding? In a complex interconnected world, how can peacebuilding continue to make constructive contributions? How are global dynamics changing the role and responsibility of state and civil society actors in “North” and “South”? With the FriEnt Peacebuilding Forum and other platforms, we offer space for reflection on these questions about the future of peacebuilding.

“Seizing opportunities” was the theme of the first FriEnt Peacebuilding Forum in Berlin in May 2014, which brought together more than 200 international experts from civil society, politics and academia. The event focused specifically on new opportunities – rather than the new limits – resulting from the changes taking place in international cooperation.

peacebuilding under additional pressure to justify itself and produce results. In light of these dynamics, peacebuilding practitioners, not only from the “North”, are seeking new ways of contributing effectively to peacebuilding and social transformation. Some of these pathways were described by participants at the FriEnt Peacebuilding Forum:

But of course peacebuilding and development face major challenges: state and civil society actors must respond to the changes in international cooperation – clinging to established peace policy paradigms is not enough. Greater professionalism and specialisation in peacebuilding have done much to increase overall effectiveness in this policy field, but can easily result in a fragmented approach which is inadequate in the face of complex and multidimensional problems. At the same time, many developments that have taken place in recent years point to diminishing scope for action by peacebuilding practitioners in both the state sector and civil society. The current debate about impacts – which focuses on problem-solving – puts

1. In complex contexts marked by uncertainty, ambiguity and unpredictability, linear thinking will not help us move forward. However, instead of leaving peacebuilding to happenstance, long-term, systemic and context-specific approaches are required. This is easier said than done. 2. Peacebuilding cannot be viewed in isolation but must be coupled with traditional areas of development policy such as democracy-building, human rights and security sector measures. It also requires the formation of new alliances among a range of stakeholders. Strong partners are needed, along with fresh perspectives and an end to silo thinking.

Qu o Va d i s Pea ceb ui l di ng? Impressions of the FriEnt Peacebuilding Forum 2014. Photos: Konstantin Börner/FriEnt

3. Peacebuilding is a local process. External actors should therefore see themselves as facilitators rather than problemsolvers and give precedence to local systems, capacities, dynamics and priorities. 4. International responsibility begins at home, with a focus on our own policies and their impacts on conflict dynamics in other countries of the world. Ultimately, as one participant at the FriEnt Peacebuilding Forum put it, we always come back to the main questions: how can we translate our knowledge into action? What kind of alliances do we need in this context? And what forms of opposition will we have to counter together, and where are they likely to arise?

“Be mindful of local stakeholders’ power struggles” Interview with Dr Cornelia Ulbert, Executive Director of the Institute for Development and Peace (INEF)

FriEnt activities FriEnt Peacebuilding Forum 2014: Seizing Opportunities – Peacebuilding in a Complex World. Reports, videos and speakers’ blog posts can be accessed here: www.frient-peacebuilding-forum.de

However, the local is itself not entirely free from power struggles. Even at local level, stakeholders profit from instability and violence and have an interest in perpetuating discord. International actors should therefore keep in mind that the financial and human resources that they invest will have considerable influence on the development of post-conflict societies and local stakeholders’ political economy. The post-2015 Agenda relies on multi-stakeholder partnerships for the implementation of the SDGs. How might these partnerships look in the context of peacebuilding? In the development sector, numerous multi-stakeholder partnerships already exist. This also applies, albeit to a lesser extent, in the narrower field of peacebuilding; the Civil Society Platform for Peacebuilding and Statebuilding (CSPPS) is one example. Generally speaking, there is no blueprint for multistakeholder partnerships. They exist at global, regional or local level and have highly diverse goals – from awareness raising and problem-solving to practical partnerships which implement specific projects. They also differ in the extent to which they are successful in achieving their goals. In the post-2015 context, this has led to a debate about how the work of these multi-stakeholder partnerships can be monitored more effectively. In the narrower field of peacebuilding, another question which needs to be addressed is how companies can be better integrated into these partnerships.

Among academics, the “local turn” is currently being discussed as a response to the failure of the liberal peacebuilding paradigm. Has this already ushered in a genuine paradigm shift? In principle, the shift of focus towards the “local” may signify a paradigm shift and, to that extent, a move away from the methods and objectives of liberal peacebuilding. In other words, it is recognised, not only in a rhetorical sense, that peacebuilding must not only be based on, but must also be informed by, existing rules, institutions and practices. The “local turn” marks a shift in focus, offering opportunities for joint learning and critical self-reflection by stakeholders. Whereas once the “supply side” dominated, more attention is now being paid to what the “local” has to offer and which local resources and skills can form the basis for peacebuilding. Closely linked to that is the concept of resilience: (local) actors’ ability to respond successfully to external threats or problems.

Q uo Vadis Peaceb u ild in g?

New Partnerships for Peace and Development: Headline Are we all Pulling Together? “We need to radically rethink our partnerships”: these words, spoken by Emmanuel Bombande from the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC) at the FriEnt Peacebuilding Forum, seem to touch a nerve in the international debate. The New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States establishes a “new partnership” between donors, g7+ countries and civil society organisations with the aim of increasing aid effectiveness in fragile and conflict-affected countries. In line with the basic concept of this new partnership, each country shall develop a shared vision and a plan for its implementation (one vision, one plan), based on transparency, local ownership, mutual accountability and trust. Depending on the topic, the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will also be implemented via multi-stakeholder partnerships from politics, civil society, academia and the private sector. A fundamental challenge, however, is to adapt the goals defined at the international level to specific contexts in accordance with local needs, capacities and traditions. On political issues such as peace-building in particular, normative questions which, in an abstract sense, already seemed to have been resolved, may also arise at this point. In most conflict-affected regions, local people are taking the initiative in an effort to rebuild social cohesion within and among communities after the shared experience of violence. Rituals and rules for the reintegration of former violent actors, for the provision of humanitarian assistance to displaced persons and for the restoration of the bases of communities’ food security are being revived or redesigned. As part of this process, the roles of traditional and religious authorities are being reaffirmed, renewed or recast, thereby gaining support and trust within the community. In this way, evolving from the

dynamics of immediate crisis management, specific priorities, expectations and needs for support from the government or, indeed, from the international community arise. The new understanding of partnership offers the prospect of a further shift in the focus of cooperation – away from the practical and technical dimension of implementation processes towards more dialogue partnerships about various options for shaping participation, social justice, gender justice or secularism. Appropriate dialogue forums can help to ensure that the range of experience is made available, in a fruitful manner, for work being undertaken in North and South and that strategies are aligned to needs, capacities and traditions. With this understanding, FriEnt hosts country-specific and thematic round tables as a space for sharing and comparing the viewpoints of North and South. Different understandings and interpretations of methods, objectives and priorities and their connotations can thus be made visible: from the vantage point of stakeholders from Mali, for example, what can be done to strengthen trust between society and government elites? How relevant is the International Criminal Court to partners from Kenya? And to what extent does this create a need for adaptation of our own strategies and programmes? Against the backdrop of global change, the new understanding of partnership means that actors from the North must further develop or, indeed, redefine their role. Networking, dialogue and space for the development of shared solutions are becoming more important. In order to actively shape this endeavour, more dialogue between civil society organisations in neighbouring European countries is needed on the normative bases and strategies for action, especially in the field of peacebuilding.

Qu o Va d i s Pea ceb ui l di ng? Great Mosque of Djenné, Mali. Photo: CC-BY-NC-SA UN Photo/Marco Dormino

“We need cross-sector partnerships” Interview with Manfred Öhm, Head of the Africa Department at the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung The European Union (EU) has pledged to promote the stabilisation of fragile states. But are its strategies a sufficiently coherent response to real-world situations of fragile statehood? What we are seeing at the European level, certainly, is intensive consultation between the EU and its Member States. The challenges lie in the lack of coherence between individual policy fields: that’s where there is room for improvement. In the interests of conflict prevention, more attention therefore needs to be paid to the causes of conflict: poverty, unemployment, and young people’s lack of prospects. This applies to fragile states and, indeed, to supposedly stable countries. At present, Europe is providing large-scale support for a peace and security architecture in Africa. However, to have a longterm effect, we must focus, firstly, on good governance and poverty reduction and, secondly, we must not lose sight of the need to develop social security systems, for example, and, above all, a fair trade regime. European trade policy must enable countries to harness their potential to transform their economies, creating local value chains and jobs. Unfortunately, these policy areas are largely ignored in the EU’s comprehensive approach to external conflicts. However, policy coherence cannot exclude these areas.

FriEnt-Aktivitäten FriEnt activities Blindtext Kasten The dynamics of Kenya’s election process (EPLO/FriEnt Brown Bag Lunch in Brussels, March 2013) Stabilising the peace in Mali – Frameworks and entry points for German actors (June 2013) Constructive relations between state and society in Mali – Challenges for international actors (joint FriEnt/Fokus Sahel working meeting, October 2014)

Europe must therefore be more broad-based, which means that it must bring actors from Western and Eastern Europe into the dialogue to a greater extent, and it goes without saying that African partners must be involved from the outset.

On the contrary, the importance of multi-sectoral approaches is likely to increase in view of the complex problems facing fragile states. So in order to do justice to the complexity of the situation, what are needed are partnerships not only among the various stakeholders, but also across diverse policy fields. Germany is increasingly seeking an alliance with France in managing crises in Africa. Which aspects require further discussion? We have recently seen a new dynamic evolving in policy towards Africa in particular. The EU-Africa Summit in 2014 attracted a great deal of attention, France has announced that it is committed to more transparency in its policy on Africa, and the German Government has adopted new Policy Guidelines for Africa. However, there is little coherence between the various initiatives and documents. The same applies to civil society initiatives, which tend to focus solely on the Africa policy discourse taking place in their own national context.

Confidential discussions at FriEnt’s Mali round table. Photo: Günter Schönegg

An ongoing exchange on Africa policy is needed between civil society organisations, think tanks etc., and crisis management can only form part of that debate. Any Franco-German initiative is certainly useful; last year, for example, the FES and IFRI jointly hosted an exchange of views on Franco-German Africa policy and Mali. But in Africa policy, and indeed in crisis management, we talk about joint European challenges – not just Franco-German challenges. Civil society partnership in

Q uo Vadis Peaceb u ild in g?

Inclusion and Constructive State-Society Relations: Rethinking Participation? Whether it’s the New Deal, the debate about the post-2015 agenda or the BMZ’s Charter for the Future: constructive relations between state and society and inclusive political negotiating processes are seen as key prerequisites for peace and development. This is based on the recognition that a lack of opportunities for political, social and economic participation by certain social groups is a key cause of conflicts and violence in many societies. For Eugenia Piza-Lopez from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), it is therefore important for a country’s ruling elites and general public to be able to jointly negotiate a social contract that can overcome exclusion, build trust and establish social relations on a new footing. But given that in many cases, discrimination has existed for generations, state structures barely exist, or confidence in others and in government institutions has been destroyed by war and violence, the challenges facing the development and acceptance of a social contract are immense. Not least, people often live in separate worlds: this applies, for example, to the urban and rural populations in Colombia, as Lina Maria Garcia from the Colombian National Planning Department explained at the FriEnt Peacebuilding Forum.

Creating space for participation – during and after political negotiations For that reason, space for participation, consultation and dialogue must be created at the start of political negotiations.

Ultimately, elites – even in revolutionary contexts – rarely have the common good in mind. Broad-based, high-quality inclusion of diverse civil society actors in peace negotiations helps to broaden the view to include different interests and needs and thus identify more durable solutions. In this context, it is not only about sitting together around the negotiating table: public pressure, informal dialogue and policy advice or parallel discussion processes are equally important. For example, the Mindanao Peoples Caucus in the Philippines was able to support negotiations between the national government and local community representatives from Mindanao after years of trust-building and dialogue. However, dialogue and opportunities for participation should not end with the conclusion of a peace agreement. Generally, this is when the Herculean task begins. When and, above all, how are the outcomes to be implemented? Are any monitoring mechanisms in place? Whether they live in Bosnia, Guatemala, Nepal or Colombia, for the vast majority of marginalised groups and victims of violence, peace agreements or laws and constitutions rarely fulfil hopes of a peace dividend in the form of better economic and political participation, social services or reparations. That is why there is still a need for various dialogue spaces – not only at national level – even after the official peace negotiations have ended. In Colombia and Nepal alike, it is clear that inclusive and needs-based processes at local level can be effective if they are transparent and involve all stakeholders from an early stage. Building mutual trust and respect is key – and is a time-consuming process.

Qu o Va d i s Pea ceb ui l di ng? Nava Durga Festival in Bhaktapur, Nepal. Photo: Margret Nielsen

“Cultural mechanisms can make a crucial contribution to social cohesion”

FriEnt activities

Interview with Rakesh Karna from Support Nepal, a partner organisation of Kurve Wustrow – Centre for Training and Networking in Nonviolent Action

FriEnt explores the relations between state and society and the associated challenges facing peace processes. This topic was the focus of attention at the following FriEnt events:

Inclusiveness at the local level – what does this mean in Nepal? Inclusion has two separate meanings in Nepal. For the ruling elite, it simply means the physical presence of groups which are otherwise not part of a process. For minorities and marginalised groups, however, it means participating in decision-making and gaining access to resources and power. It is not about one party giving and the other receiving. It is about ensuring that the recipient is able to participate actively in a fair and open decision-making process. For the ruling elite, inclusion means “unity in diversity”, whereas for the marginalised groups, it means “unity with due regard for diversity” and in some cases,

How we failed but still found a way – experiences of state-civil society cooperation through the Nepal Peace Trust Fund (September 2013) No peace without participation! Challenges and experiences of civil society involvement in peace negotiations (October 2013) What holds Nepal together? Entry points for international support (April 2014) Addressing state-society relations in post-conflict societies (PBF - May 2014) What holds/brings Nepal together? Entry points for international support for Nepalese society (September 2014)

for example, which reflect distinct cultures but are are respected and celebrated communally. These festivals can help to strengthen social harmony and inter-community cohesion. Similarly, there are various cultural mechanisms which make a substantial contribution to building peace at the local level and can be used to help resolve inter-group conflicts. A range of formal and informal community-based groups, such as local peace committees, mothers’ groups and awareness-raising centres exist, and these can be strengthened as a form of local architecture to promote participation and social cohesion.

Demonstrators in Bogotá focus on the “key” issue: the peace process between the Colombian government and FARC. Photo: picture alliance/Demotix

it can even mean “compensation for past abuses, and affirmative actions”. What maintains cohesion in Nepal? Nepalese communities are generally diverse and pluralist. However, in daily life, people share in each other’s cultures, traditions and social events, although the cultural practices of the minorities and indigenous communities are strongly influenced by the culture and traditions of the dominant social groups. Nonetheless, we are now seeing a growing number of festivals,

What roles can international actors play in this process? International actors can be facilitators by bringing together a variety of stakeholders within a divided society. They can act as coordinators by linking up stand-alone measures, and as catalysts by initiating innovative and open-ended thinking. They can provide inspiration for dialogue, learning and sharing of international experience in pursuit of a common vision, as promoters of collective endeavour, and as experts on conflict-sensitive, inclusive and sustainable action. During transformation processes, however, international actors should not impose values or know-how with no local basis that can be built on. They should also avoid supporting exclusive power structures in a corrupt system and encouraging unrealistic expectations.

The 20 1 4 Evaluation

The 2014 Evaluation

What benefits do FriEnt members gain from the Working Group? Which topics and regions are relevant to them? And how do they see future cooperation unfolding? These questions were addressed in an evaluation commissioned by the FriEnt Steering Committee in May 2014. As the final report makes clear, internationally, FriEnt is a unique model of cooperation between state and civil society organisations. Through continuous and institutionalised dialogue and cooperation, trust has increased, informal learning spaces outside the institutional framework have been established, and new access to a diverse range of actors has been created. The FriEnt team, comprising representatives of all the member organisations, acts as a bridge-builder and pool of experts in this context. In addition, according to evaluators Martina Fischer and Barbara Unger from the Berghof Foundation, through its various activities, including the new FriEnt Peacebuilding Forum, FriEnt has made a valuable contribution to increasing the visibility of this thematic and policy area and to networking with international actors. The report concludes that the Working Group’s goals, thematic priorities and activities are highly relevant now and will continue to be important in future. Work processes and channels of communication among participants are well established and efficient, but pose ongoing demands on the Steering Committee and team. In view of the diversity of needs and increase in armed conflict, managing diversity and maintaining flexibility while continuing to pursue thematic priorities were identified as challenges. The appraisers therefore recommend that the thematic and strategic direction, communication among members and forms of participation within the Working Group be developed further, with due regard for members’ diversity.

The 2014 evaluation – quotes from the interviews: “The way in which FriEnt has managed to facilitate the expert discussions on land rights in Cambodia is remarkable; these talks genuinely added value.” “With FriEnt, the first priority is to exchange ideas on important and contentious issues […] without having to worry about our own organisation’s profile or position.” “It really does bring the experts together.” “FriEnt also plays a very successful role as a ‘neutral broker’ and facilitator – and thus offers something that the individual member organisations are unable to provide.” “The term ‘learning community’ should be understood as a reciprocal relationship to a greater extent. It’s about taking greater account of views from the Global South.” “Thanks to the good networking among member organisations and partners in the Global South, FriEnt offers good starting points for challenging outdated thinking and establishing new learning communities.” “The FriEnt team thinks outside the box; this space and the way in which it is filled thematically generate indispensable valueadded.” “FriEnt’s multi-faceted perspective unlocks a new type of knowledge and methodological skills and thus provides important impetus for further conceptual development.”

Photo: Konstantin Börner/FriEnt

Publications

FriEnt Structure (2013-2014)

Wer die Wahl hat, ist in Gefahr? Wahlen als Erfolgs- und Risikofaktor für Friedensprozesse Dokumentation der Podiumsdiskussion zum Internationalen Friedenstag 2013 Brot für die Welt, FES, FriEnt | 2014

Steering Committee

How do I know? Strategic planning, learning and evaluation for peacebuilding FriEnt Study 06/2014 | FriEnt | 2014

BMZ Christine Toetzke (Chair until August 2014) / Gundula Weitz-Huthmann

Reparations, Land and Natural Resources Workshop Report | 14 February 2014 Caroline Kruckow, Carla Schraml, Sylvia Servaes | FriEnt | 2014 Frieden auf der globalen Entwicklungsagenda. Die Post2015-Agenda muss die Brücke zwischen Frieden, Entwicklung und Nachhaltig schlagen Marc Baxmann | in: welt-sichten-Dossier des Konsortium ZFD (10/2014) In Larger Justice: Linking Health Care, Transitional Justice and Peacebuilding Sylvia Servaes and Natascha Zupan Journal of Peacebuilding and Development (Vol. 8/No.3) Frühwarnung und zivile Krisenprävention müssen besser miteinander verzahnt werden Angelika Spelten | in: Sicherheit und Frieden 2|2014 Rezension des Friedensgutachtens 2014 Natascha Zupan | in: Wissenschaft und Frieden 03/2014 Verhandeln bevor es zu spät ist? Präventive Diplomatie 20 Jahre nach der Agenda für den Frieden Dokumentation der Podiumsdiskussion zum Internationalen Friedenstag 2012 Brot für die Welt-EED, FES, FriEnt | 2013 Help or Hindrance? Results-orientation in conflict-affected situations FriEnt/KOFF-Working Paper Stefan Bächtold, Roland Dittli, Sylvia Servaes | KOFF, FriEnt | 2013

Member / Deputy member

Bread for the World

Dr. Wolfgang Heinrich (Chair)

GIZ

Dr. Roman Poeschke / Dunja Brede

FES

Jochen Steinhilber / F lorian Koch (to August 2014) Elisabeth Braune

hbs

Steffen Heizmann / Kirsten Maas-Albert

KZE/Misereor

Michael Hippler / Elisabeth Bially

Civil Peace Service Group

Bernd Rieche, AGDF / Martin Vehrenberg, AGEH

Platform ZKB/INEF Ulrich Frey, Plattform ZKB Dr. Cornelia Ulbert, INEF ZIF

Dr. Almut Wieland-Karimi / Tobias Pietz

Team Coordinator Natascha Zupan Office Manager, Webmaster Brigitte Kirschner Policy and Communication Officer Marc Baxmann South Caucasus, Land Conflicts Caroline Kruckow, Bread for the World

Education, change and peacebuilding Essay by Lynn Davies, Emeritus Professor of International Education, University of Birmingham FriEnt | 2013

Middle East and North Africa Bodo Schulze, BMZ

Critical Reflection on ‘Land Grabbing’ in Fragile and ConflictAffected Contexts. Following the KOFF Roundtable of 27 November 2012 Andreas Graf, Caroline Kruckow, Sergio Gemperle | KOFF, FriEnt | 2013

Nepal, State/Society Relations Sonja Vorwerk-Halve, GIZ (since March 2013)

Justice Transitionnelle & Traitement du Passé Document d‘orientation Sylvia Servaes et Natascha Zupan | FriEnt | 2013

Columbia, Human Rights and Peacebuilding Christine Meissler, GIZ (to January 2013)

Middle East and North Africa Carla Schraml, GIZ (January - June 2014) UN, Peacebuilding and Security Marius Müller-Hennig, FES Democracy Promotion, Human Rights and Peacebuilding Jana Mittag, hbs (to September 2014) Middle East and North Africa, Democratic Transition Claudia Rolf, hbs (since October 2014) Nepal, Transitional Justice, Wirkungsbeobachtung Sylvia Servaes, KZE/Misereor Indonesia, Education, Capacity Development Anja Justen, Civil Peace Service Group Nepal, Transitional Justice, Impact Assessment Angelika Spelten, Platform ZKB/INEF Peace Operations, Peacebuilding and Security Dr. Andreas Wittkowsky, ZIF

FriEnt is a working group of: Bread for the World – Protestant Development Service Federal 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 Service

We don n’t turn n ourr bac cks s on n co onflic ct.