Peace and Development

Bi­annual Report 2009 – 2010

Peace and Development

FriEnt

The Working Group on Peace and Development (FriEnt) is an association of governmental organisations, church devel­ opment agencies, civil society networks, and political foun­ dations.

FriEnt aims to pool capacities, support networking and coop­ eration, and contribute to conflict­sensitive development cooperation. FriEnt’s members are committed to working together to promote a range of approaches and highlight the potential of conflict sensitive development and peace­ building to policy­makers and the public at large.

FriEnt’s members are united by their great commitment to peacebuilding and development. They vary, however, in their size, mandate, international partners, projects and approach­ es. They aim to utilise their diverse perspectives and experi­ ence as an asset for their shared productive work on peace building in the context of development cooperation.

FriEnt’s members Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Develop­ ment (BMZ) | Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH | Church Development Service (EED) | Friedrich­Ebert­Stiftung (FES) | Heinrich­Böll­Stiftung (hbs) | Catholic Central Agency for Development Aid / Misereor | Civil Peace Service Group (CPS) | German Platform for Peaceful Conflict Management / Institute for Development and Peace, University Duisburg­Essen (INEF) | Center for International Peace Operations (ZIF)

Imprint © Working Group on Peace and Development (FriEnt) Dahlmannstraße 4 53113 Bonn Germany Tel. +49­228­535­3259 Fax +49­228­535­3799 frient@bmz.bund.de www.frient.de/en Editors: Marc Baxmann, Natascha Zupan (V.i.S.d.P.) Assistant: Eva Wernecke Authors: Marc Baxmann, Anja Justen, Caroline Kruckow, Marius Müller­Hennig, Lisa Schirch, Sylvia Servaes, Angelika Spelten, Natascha Zupan Translation: Hillary Crowe Disclaimer: The named labelled contributions express the opinion of the respective authors and do not necessarily represent those of the FriEnt member organizations.

Bonn, September 2011 Pictures: Cover: Deborah Benbrook; Cover: Deborah Benbrook; p. 2: Thomas Köhler/photothek; privat; p. 3: Thomas Köhler/photothek; Thomas Ecke; Chris Willkomm; Thomas Ecke; p. 4: O. Lehner/European Commission; p. 5 left: Ben Barber/USAID, Photoshare; p. 5 right: Charlie Saceda; p. 6: mortsan, CC­license; p. 7: UN Photo/Martine Perret; p. 8/p. 9: European Union (3x); p. 10: UN Photo/Paulo Filgueiras; p. 11: Chris Willkomm (3x); p. 12: Caroline Kruckow; p. 13 left: BMZ; p. 13 right: Jan Stockbrügger; p. 14: alex.ch; p. 15: Michael Billanitsch/EED; p. 16: Jonathan McIntosh/flickr; p. 18: European Commission; p. 19 oben: private; p. 19 below: GIZ; p. 20: The Advocacy Project; p. 21 above: privat; p. 21 below: Jochen Hippler; p. 22: Ben Parker/IRIN; p. 23 above: private; p. 23 below: Sandra Cuffe; p. 24: Thomas Ecke

Contents

Preface: More than the sum of its parts – 10 years of FriEnt Editorial: FriEnt 2009/2010 – Networking, information, advice

2 3

Challenging Peacebuilding Paradigms Questioning assumptions – adopting new approaches Mediation and dialogue as a way out of the conflict trap in South Caucasus?

Elections: peace promoter or spoiler? The example of Burundi

4 6 7

International Peacebuilding Perspectives Quo vadis EU: New impetus for peace and development?

UN Peace Day: International responsibility for peace and development

8 10

Land and Its Peace and Conflict Potential Land: home or the basis of production?

Cambodia: State and civil society cooperation in the management of land conflicts Indonesia: Protecting human and land rights South Africa: Land restitution between justice and development

12 14 16 17

FriEnt’s 10th Anniversary “There was a real sense of optimism” Adolf Kloke­Lesch and Jürgen Nikolai look back on FriEnt’s early days Perspectives for linking peacebuilding and development Natascha Zupan considers old and new challenges Fixing obstacles blocking a multi­stakeholder approach to peace and development Guest Article by Lisa Schirch on state and civil society cooperation Sharing knowledge – creating impetus FriEnt structure

18 20 22

24 25

Contents

More than the sum of its parts – 10 years of FriEnt

Trustful cooperation between state and civil society at the interface between peace and development: this has been the hallmark of the Working Group on Peace and Develop­ ment (FriEnt) for the last 10 years. Isolated measures diminish the impact of our own work, so the exchange of analyses and experience is essential if efforts to address complex crisis and conflict situations are to be effective. It was this recognition which prompted governmental and civil society organisations to establish FriEnt on 1 September 2001.

FriEnt offers its members a unique networking and learning platform. The aim is to pool expertise, promote networking and cooperation, progress issues of relevance to peacebuild­ ing and development, and make a joint contribution to con­ flict­sensitive development cooperation. Whereas the much­ vaunted “dialogue on an equal footing” is, sadly, no more than an empty phrase in far too many cases, for FriEnt, it is an essential prerequisite and foundation for its existence.

Over the past 10 years, however, we have learned that this dialogue is neither an end in itself, nor should it be seen as a guarantee of harmony. Our organisational cultures, our theories of change, our mandates and strategies are too diverse for that. However, we have a shared understanding of the need to address controversial issues arising within the FriEnt context on the basis of trust and utilise them in a positive and productive way.

This applies to the planning of projects and programmes in countries affected by conflict, as well as to the dialogue about sensitive topics – such as the nexus between peace, development and security. It also applies to current para­ digms in peacebuilding and development, reform processes on the multilateral level, or the conflict­related risks of land investments. FriEnt works mainly in the background – and generally considers the perspectives of partner organisations from the global South. This allows us to look beyond our own horizons and facilitates shared learning.

The FriEnt Team creates the necessary space for this process.

It initiates cooperation and provides advice. Through its unique composition – mainly comprising staff from the member organisations – the Working Group facilitates a holistic view. This is vital for a more nuanced understanding of conflict situations and dynamics and better coordination between the various programmes.

In the coming years, FriEnt members will continue to give high priority to advocating for the strategies and potentials of development and peacebuilding vis­à­vis German policy­ makers and in the public arena. In this context, we will focus on long­term solutions, the needs of our partners and part­ ner countries, and the recognition of diversity in conflict prevention and sustainable peacebuilding.

Bonn/Berlin, July 2011

Christine Toetzke, BMZ

Dr. Wolfgang Heinrich, EED

Chairs of the FriEnt Steering Committee

2

Preface

FriEnt 2009/2010 – Networking, information, advice

16 country round tables, 12 workshops, two international conferences, three public events, 20 issues of FriEnt Impulses and Webnews, three briefing papers and three sets of docu­ mentation, as well as various consultation processes and trainings: this is the FriEnt team’s score card at the end of 2009 and 2010. Underlying these bald statistics, however, are complex thematic and country­specific challenges which FriEnt members and others must address. We hope that through our activities, we have provided impetus for the further progress of conflict sensitive development and peacebuilding.

We are delighted to have the opportunity, with our bi­annual report 2009/2010, to give you some insights into our work and the activities undertaken by FriEnt members. However, the focus is just not on achievements to date; we also high­ light substantive challenges and their significance for the practical work of the various peacebuilding and development actors. We have therefore chosen to profile “Peacebuilding Paradigms”, “International Processes” and “Land Conflicts” as three of our thematic priorities to provide the framework for the report. We would particularly like to thank our col­ leagues in FriEnt’s member organisations and other interview­ ees who recount their experience and share their views.

The years 2009 and 2010 brought some changes to the Working Group. We once again have two political founda­ tions – the Friedrich Ebert Foundation and the Heinrich Böll Foundation – among our members. The Center for Interna­ tional Peace Operations (ZIF) also joined FriEnt, offering the Working Group its valuable perspective on the issues of peacebuilding and development. As a result of these changes, we have also welcomed many new colleagues to the team and the steering committee.

FriEnt’s anniversary in 2011 is an opportunity for us to reflect on the last 10 years of conflict sensitive development and peacebuilding. On this basis, and together with FriEnt mem­ bers, we are keen to identify current challenges and discuss options for action by state and civil society actors. Besides the progress made and the areas where further work is needed to mainstream peacebuilding in traditional areas of development cooperation – education, health and land management – a stronger focus on the international level, as well as transformation and democratisation processes, are other issues on FriEnt’s agenda.

So as we celebrate the 10th anniversary and present the bi­ annual report 2009/2010, we look back but we also look for­ ward, laying the foundation for further reflection within the Working Group on future priorities and objectives for FriEnt. The FriEnt Team wishes you an enjoyable read!

Natascha Zupan

Marc Baxmann

Head of the FriEnt Team

Communication Officer

Editorial

3

Questioning assumptions – adopting new approaches

Democracy promotes peace. Civil society builds bridges across social divides. Dialogue leads to reconciliation. But what happens if these peace building paradigms are chal­ lenged by reality? What if elections trigger violence, or dia­ logues and encounters reinforce stereotypes? In that case, as FriEnt sees it, these assumptions must be subjected to critical reflection. This does not mean jettisoning existing assumptions altogether; rather, their viability in other politi­ cal, social and cultural contexts must be tested and working methods adapted accordingly. Together with its members, FriEnt has therefore put two of these approaches – support for political transformation processes, and dialogue pro­ grammes – under the microscope.

“I am because we are” “Which changes do you expect to affect you personally if the party you support wins or loses the elections?” This question was addressed to young people from Germany and Kenya who took part in an event on “The importance of par­ liamentary elections” facilitated by FriEnt in autumn 2010.

Whereas most of the young people from Germany took the view that elections would make very little difference to them personally, the young people from Kenya remained silent. Even after repeated efforts to clarify the issue, the young Kenyans still did not understand the question. Finally, the leader of the Kenyan group spoke up: “It’s because of the way you’ve phrased the question. We don’t have an answer. We don’t have any individual expectations, and the way an election result affects me personally is of no conse­ quence. “I am because we are”. All that matters from the individual’s perspective is how the election outcome affects the group as a whole.”

4

Challenging Peacebuilding Paradigms

This reaction caused consternation, but it also reaffirmed a familiar reality: for many people in African countries, it is not the state but the ethnic group which still provides the set of reference. It is where allegiance­based relationships converge and it is the membership to the ethnic group which frames the expectations and the conduct of the indi­ vidual in his or her role as voter, candidate or political office­holder, or as a public employee.

In recent years, however, African countries have witnessed the growth of the intellectual middle class, whose aspira­ tions centre on reforms and a modern system of governance based on democratic principles. These reform­minded strata of society have been the focus of Western policies to pro­ mote good governance and stabilise peace, based on the premise that the decision­makers in the state’s institutions have overcome the constraints imposed by old allegiances and now see the reform of political structures, institutions and legal frameworks as offering greatest leverage for democratisation, stability and peace.

FriEnt Activities Opportunities and Risks of Elections in Africa International Workshop, May 2009 Promoting Peace Through Dialogue – Limits and Potentials Workshop in cooperation with the Civil Peace Service Group, October 2009 Discussions about the opportunities and risks associated with elections in Burundi, Kenya and Tanzania, February 2010 Kenya’s New Constitution – A Breakthrough for Peace and Stability?

FriEnt Round Table, October 2010

However, in light of the real­world developments taking place in some partner countries, critical reflection of these expectations is required. Dr Ulrich Golaszinski, Head of the East Africa Department and Democracy Project at the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, has observed the constitutional reform processes in Zimbabwe and Kenya and is sceptical about the outcomes: “The difficulties in implementing “people­ driven constitutions” in Zimbabwe and Kenya show that it is obviously possible to carry out sweeping political reforms without having any effect on the underlying political con­ flicts. Although the system’s structures change, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the new powerful elites will be identical with the old ones and operate according to the old rules, which lack transparency.”

Which approach should be adopted in the face of this reality?

Which adjustments are required, and which measures are needed to prevent violence? These issues were addressed

at a number of expert discussions organised by FriEnt. They showed that working hypotheses about the impacts of demo­ cratisation processes must, in every country, start from the functional logic of existing power relations. Furthermore, reforms should not overstretch the peace potential existing within the society concerned, to ensure that the risk of vio­ lence remains calculable.

“Changing every­day realities” Whether in Rwanda, Bosnia, or Israel and the Palestinian territories: civil society dialogue and encounter programmes are now an integral element of many peace processes.

“However, in many cases, there is no differentiation between the objectives of these programmes,” said Gudrun Kramer from the Austria­based Institute for Integrative Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding at a FriEnt workshop in October 2009. What’s more: “The aims adopted for media­ tion processes with political decision­makers are not suit­ able as topics for dialogue programmes at grassroots level.

The aims need to be adapted, and methodologies should not be transferred from one dialogue context to another. In civil society processes, it’s about changing people’s every­ day realities. It’s not about solving the conflict.”

Part of this reality is that the social environment is generally hostile to the idea of encounter with the “other side”. Partic­ ipants in dialogue projects must therefore be chosen care­ fully and given intensive support. Detailed consideration must also be given to the general environment. If there are very few changes in people’s every­day lives, if checkpoints

and walls make any kind of meeting impossible in practical terms, this can lead to frustration and rejection. Instead of initiating dialogue across divides, it may therefore be more appropriate, in many cases, to start by working within a single community.

Whether the work takes place within a community or across the divide, external actors can play an important role in both contexts. Nenad Vukosavljevic from the Centre for Nonviolent Action in Belgrade advises external actors to remain flexible, take risks, and reflect on their own role. “External actors do not remain external for long, and anyone claiming a mediat­ ing role for themselves must also consider that this could weaken local partners who have taken on a similar role.”

Challenging Peacebuilding Paradigms

5

Mediation and dialogue as a way out of the conflict trap in South Caucasus?

The outbreak of war between Russia and Georgia in August 2008 was profoundly traumatic for people in the region, abruptly destroying their hopes of peace and development.

Today, peace work with and within the secessionist entities of Abkhazia and South Ossetia faces complex challenges, including the integration of internally displaced persons.

The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the region of Nagorno­Karabakh is another long lasting and actual crisis hotspot in the neighbourhood. It attracted renewed interna­ tional attention as a peripheral issue during the war in Georgia, briefly awakening hopes that a peaceful solution could be achieved. However, neither the international commitment nor the rapprochement between Armenia and Turkey pro­ duced a political solution. On the contrary, the situation appears to be steadily worsening.

Both conflicts fluctuate between dialogue and deadlock – between neutrality on the status issue and demands for ter­ ritorial integrity. Entrenched nationalist positions on all sides impede conflict resolution and drastically curtail civil society’s space for action.

“All forms of dialogue need good support” Interview with Walter Kaufmann, Head of the Eastern Europe Department at the Heinrich Böll Foundation What are the major challenges for civil society organisations engaged in peacebuilding in the South Caucasus?

The governments in Azerbaijan and Georgia in particular have no interest in involving mediators. On the contrary, they expect civil society to support their positions – in other words, territorial integrity and reintegration. Any organisa­ tion not wishing to pursue this course finds that its scope for action is even further reduced.

6

Challenging Peacebuilding Paradigms

What are the main problems affecting mediation?

One of the main sources for ongoing tension is the lack of recognition for the conflict parties from the secessionist entities. The systematic blocking of access to the local level is the greatest obstacle to the mediation process. The inten­ tion is to isolate the regions, which is why at present far greater weight is being placed on status issues again.

Which forms of dialogue have proved their worth?

Transregional formats in venues outside the conflict regions have been particularly useful as a way of creating distance from the status issues. This enables participation also from the secessionist entities – but only when the meetings were transparent and public and involved an appropriate set of actors. Proper selection of the participants is vital for the success of each dialogue. Every form of dialogue needs care­ ful attention and support. Strategic measures are required to address deadlocks. Meticulous preparation and follow­up are essential. Otherwise, in this entrenched situation, the risk of provoking a “clash” is high.

FriEnt Activities With the South Caucasus Round Table, established in 2008, FriEnt aims to sharpen the focus on the complexity and interdependence of the conflicts in the South Caucasus. Topics addressed to date include: The Current Situation in Georgia and Crisis Prevention Issues (April 2009) Prospects for Non­violent Conflict Transformation in Nagorno­ Karabakh (October 2009) Peace Potentials in Georgia from the Perspective of Internally Displaced Persons (June 2010)

Elections: peace promoter or spoiler?

The example of Burundi FriEnt Activities Elections are the mechanism by which a country’s popula­ tion determines who should represent them and form a government. Elections ease the transfer of power between rival parties on the basis of a structured and transparent competition in accordance with clearly defined rules. This is not only how the countries of the Global North advocate for political reforms in Africa it is as well the African Union who defines the democratic agenda in this way.

However, as the experience of some African countries shows, the conduct of voters and political parties often follows very different norms and logic. In five out of ten countries which held presidential elections in 2010, the opposition or sections of the population refused to accept the election results – sometimes with violent consequences.

In Burundi, for example, an election marathon from the local to the national level took place between May and September 2010, with the threat of failure looming right at the outset.

Following the ruling party’s victory in the local elections, the opposition responded with allegations of massive election­ rigging and pulled out of the presidential elections.

Some members of the Civil Peace Service Group supported local partners’ efforts, in advance of the elections, to raise the general public’s awareness of democratic processes and institutions and the role of political parties. In the following interview, Günter Schönegg, Eirene advisor in Burundi, talks about the elections’ significance for local communities.

As a result of the opposition boycott, only one candidate stood in the presidential election. Under these circumstances, did the election serve any real purpose for the general public?

By this point, the majority of the population did not want the election to take place; they had – and still have – other

As part of its priority topic of prevention, FriEnt has focused particularly on opportunities and risks associated with elections in Africa. Round table discussions on Burundi have taken place in this context, with the following topics being addressed: Elections in Burundi. A Field of Action for FriEnt Members?

(September 2009) Elections in Burundi. Where Do We Go from Here? (September 2010)

priorities. Many Burundians took the view that the elections were only taking place because this was agreed in the Arusha peace process in 2010. Not voting would have meant chal­ lenging the peace process, so the election was regarded as vital for peace. Nonetheless, people were well aware that elections could result in destabilisation and violence so their attitude was very ambivalent. In all the elections, Burundians voted first and foremost for “stability”. A vote for the incumbent President Nkurunziza and his party was thus a vote for “more of the same”.

Although the people of Burundi tended to regard these elec­ tions as a necessary evil, could the elections probably still contribute to the process of democratisation by offering the people an opportunity to practise democratic proceedings?

For Burundian society, local and municipal elections are a much better learning ground for democracy. At this level, rural communities have opportunities for participation which don’t exist at the provincial or national level. Decisions taken at the local level also have direct impacts on the rural popu­ lation, and the decision­making processes are transparent. It is regrettable that the international community rarely observes election cycles at the local level. Their significance for the establishment of democratic processes is often underesti­ mated.

Challenging Peacebuilding Paradigms

7

Quo vadis EU: New impetus for peace and development?

Over the last two years, the European Union (EU) has set the course for its future engagement for peace and development.

The 27 EU Member States have adopted conflict prevention as central objective of the Union’s external action under the Lisbon Treaty. Regional responsibilities are now pooled within the new European External Action Service, which has its own unit dedicated to conflict prevention, peacebuilding and mediation. This creates new opportunities as well as challenges to link European peacebuilding policy with devel­ opment cooperation.

In its Programme for the Prevention of Violent Conflicts – also known as the “Gothenburg Programme” – adopted 10 years ago, the EU pledged to enhance its instruments for long­ and short­term prevention, to mainstream conflict prevention and peacebuilding within all relevant policy areas, and to address the root causes of conflict. Since then, the EU has indeed adopted and developed a number of spe­ cific instruments. There are still gaps which need to be filled, however, especially as regards the linkage with devel­ opment actions. These gaps are particularly apparent in the EU’s financial instruments, as well as in some of its regional strategies. For example, the 3rd Africa­EU Summit in late 2010 generated little fresh impetus for the integration of peacebuilding into the Joint Africa­EU Strategy.

framework of the Peace Building Partnership established under the EU’s Instrument for Stability, for example, a Civil Society Dialogue Network (CSDN) has been set up, aimed at facilitating structured dialogue between civil society and the EU institutions.

“We cannot avoid a stronger division of labour” Interview with Christine Toetzke, Head of the Peace and Security Division at the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) How much of a role does the EU level play for German development cooperation and peacebuilding policy?

The EU plays a very important role, for it establishes the rele­ vant framework – primarily in the Gothenburg Programme and the European Consensus on Development, but also in the European Security Strategy, of course. EU decisions relating to specific conflicts or fragile states also provide an important basis, especially for the coordination of the EU’s position in international organisations. This is the framework within which German development cooperation operates as well.

FriEnt Activities

8

At the latest, the current processes for the reform of EU development policy and the negotiations on the next finan­ cial framework from 2014 will signal how much of a priority the EU attaches to conflict prevention and peacebuilding in its external relations, and which role development coopera­ tion will play in this context.

The EU Instrument of Stability as a Bridge between Security and Development – What Role for Civil Society?

FriEnt/VENRO Workshop, March 2009

The perspectives and expertise of civil society organisations have a key role to play in all these processes. Within the

Potential of the EU­Indonesia Human Rights Dialogue for Peace and Development FriEnt Round Table on Indonesia, October 2010

International Peacebuilding Perspectives

The EU’s Role in the Chad/Sudan Region FriEnt Round Table on Chad/Sudan, June 2009

The EU has numerous instruments at its disposal which are not available to the Member States on an individual basis but to which we contribute. One example is the Instrument for Stability. The EU also provides a very substantial amount of funding and implements programmes in conflict affected countries, making it one of the major donors, so we have to harmonise our own national actions with the EU. The EU also provides a forum for coordination with other EU Member States.

The European Consensus on Development defines conflict prevention and fragile states as core areas of EU development policy. Where does the EU have comparative advantages, and which tasks should it take on to a greater extent?

The EU has advantages in that it has “fewer” vested interests, at least, than the large Member States. This increases its credibility in many countries. The EU has some form of rep­ resentation in almost every country, including many fragile states and conflict countries which have been “forgotten

peace and security architecture. This is an area where the EU can draw on its own wealth of experience, and it should continue to be expanded, not only in Africa. Early warning and the development of civil conflict prevention capacities are just two examples.

In your view, do the new structures offer opportunities for more mainstreaming of peacebuilding in European develop­ ment policy?

My hope is that with the new External Action Service, it will genuinely be possible to make better use of synergies and coordinate actions more effectively. There is still a consider­ able lack of clarity at present, however. A separate issue, in my view, is the integration of conflict sensitivity and peace­ building in European development cooperation. This, on the other hand, requires the consistent application and develop­ ment of existing directives and the drafting of new guidelines.

about” and where many Member States no longer have a presence at all.

Another advantage is that the EU can combine many of the instruments in its toolbox, including the Development Co­ope­ ration Instrument, the Instrument for Humanitarian Assis­ tance, the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, and the Instrument for Stability. But there is also scope for the EU to combine these Community instruments with those available under the Common Foreign and Security Policy in order to achieve greater effectiveness. There is room for improvement, however, and I am placing my hopes in the new External Action Service here.

One specific comparative advantage undoubtedly lies in the support provided for regional organisations to develop their

Is further “Europeanisation” a sensible approach, in your view, or should the EU focus on improving the coordination between national strategies?

I believe that a twin­pronged approach is appropriate.

However, full communitisation of conflict prevention and peacebuilding would not seem to be a realistic or sensible option. The Member States will not relinquish control of this important policy field.

On the other hand, it would be helpful in many cases if strategic guidelines were established at EU level. However, this would require the adoption of a binding reference doc­ ument at high level, which should contain quantifiable implementation measures and some kind of division of labour. I believe that in the field of conflict prevention and peacebuilding, as elsewhere, we cannot avoid a stronger division of labour. So it is especially regrettable that work on the proposed EU Action Plan for Situations of Conflict and Fragility has been shelved for almost two years now.

International Peacebuilding Perspectives

9

UN Peace Day: International responsibility for peace and development Peace and development are the two core tasks of the United Nations (UN). That being the case, the UN is in a par­ ticularly good position to link up these two thematic areas – for despite a sobering balance sheet, the UN is still the main player in peacekeeping and peacebuilding, according to Professor Tobias Debiel, Director of the Institute for Devel­ opment and Peace (INEF) and a member of the Board of the German Platform for Peaceful Conflict Management: “We have very few alternatives. Regional organisations – for example in sub­Saharan Africa – would be unable to fill the gap. So our aim must be to continue to develop and reform the UN’s peace operations.”

But as Debiel points out, it is essential to address the prob­ lems that have been identified. “There are virtually no cri­ teria in place that provide the basis for decision­making on the ending of interventions or define the conditions and timescales for this process. And yet over time, an interna­ tional presence may well become part of the problem.”

Sustainable solutions require long­term perspectives: “State­ building takes place at the interface between security and development – but it still relies far too heavily on blueprints which fail to take adequate account of local conditions, socio­economic structures and cultural values.”

For civil society networks such as the German Platform for Peaceful Conflict Management, a key task is to put conflict prevention issues and the UN’s key role high up on the poli­ tical agenda in Germany, says Debiel. Germany must use its influence within the UN framework to ensure that its own experience is brought to bear. The UN should not be down­ graded to one partner among many alongside the NATO and the EU. Debiel believes that the UN could particularly bene­ fit if the public and policy­makers in Germany were mobi­ lised to voice their demands for Germany to make its own

10

International Peacebuilding Perspectives

pro­active contributions to peace and development. He is convinced that the International Day of Peace, which was established by the United Nations and takes place on 21 September, offers a good opportunity here.

Reconciliation and responsibility Where are the linkages – and where are the gaps – between Germany’s policy of remembrance and dealing with the past and current peace policy? This question was the sub­ ject of the panel discussion with Professor Jost Düffler from the University of Cologne, Marcus Lenzen, a conflict advisor to the UK’s Department for International Develop­ ment (DFID), and Professor Christian Schwarz­Schilling, former High Representative and European Union Special Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The discussion was chaired by Dr Corinna Hauswedell.

One of the important lessons learned from history that is of relevance to credible and responsible peace policy is that there are no “quick fixes” or blueprints. Another lesson is that comprehensive peace policy begins at home. In

FriEnt Activities Every year, Bonn­based development and peace organisations celebrate the United Nations’ International Day of Peace. They take the UN Peace Day as an opportunity to turn the spotlight on peace issues and activities and promote the public debate.

For the last three years, FriEnt and two of its member organisa­ tions, the Church Development Service (EED) and the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, have hosted a public event as their contribu­ tion to the UN Peace Day in Bonn. More than 100 guests took part in the panel discussions in both 2009 and 2010.

other words, migration policy, home affairs and economic policy are also integral to a coherent and responsible approach. In the UN context, long­term strategies must be given priority.

The participants agreed that sectors such as education should also be regarded as an element of pro­active and effective peace policy. In this respect, however, many policies fall short of what is required. This is a lesson which should have been learned from the German experience. Genuine steps towards reconciliation can only ever be taken by the per­ sons themselves, but the international community and non­ governmental organisations can support them and facilitate the process.

The Millennium Development Goals and peace How can the United Nations’ endeavours in the field of peace and development be structured in such a way that they are mutually reinforcing? We invited Dr Flavia Pansieri, Executive Coordinator of the United Nations Volunteers (UNV) pro­ gramme, and Emeritus Professor Franz Nuscheler from the University of Duisburg­Essen to discuss this and other ques­ tions. The discussion was chaired by Dr Beate Wagner, Secre­ tary­General of the German United Nations Association.

Before the discussion, the guests were welcomed by Ambas­ sador Dr Peter Wittig, Germany’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, in a video message. As the Chair of the UN Peacebuilding Commission, he underlined that con­ flict prevention and peacebuilding are key instruments for achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

According to Franz Nuscheler, the Millennium Development Goals lack a relevant political dimension; he therefore pro­ posed that MDG 8 be extended to include the attainment of peace. The alternative, he said, is to adopt an MDG 9 which places greater emphasis on the stabilisation of peace and state institutions.

Flavia Pansieri emphasised that particular consideration should be given to state­society­relations in post­conflict settings, in parallel to the various practical, political and technical issues of relevance to institution­building. This relationship of trust – which is generally disrupted, if not destroyed, during conflict – must be re­established on a new basis. Civil society has an important role to play in this context, said Pansieri.

However, it is not only the individual state which relies on the trust of its citizens; for the United Nations too, especially in its peace operations, a trustful relationship with local com­ munities plays a central role in making a sustainable contri­ bution to peace.

International Peacebuilding Perspectives

11

Land: home or the basis of production?

From his well­guarded villa on the outskirts of his home town, Mr Wambu manages his modern cattle farm, located in a neighbouring village. The influential businessman owns 3000 hectares of land, acquired from the community on the basis of an agreement with the traditional village chief.

Previously, the land was used by the village as common graz­ ing land for their cattle. Now, the villagers say, the herdsmen have to travel long distances in order to circumvent the land owned by Mr Wambu and the new Chinese tea plantations.

However, some of the young people have been given jobs on the new cattle farm, and the community receives manure for their vegetable gardens, based on an arrangement made by the chief and the men of the village. The women’s views on the matter are not known.

Mr Wambu is proud of his project. He is planning a further expansion, perhaps with a view to setting up a meat­pro­ cessing factory in future. What is certain is that he intends to increase his land holdings as he needs more grazing areas for his growing herd.

For the majority of poor people in developing countries, land is essential for survival. If their land is taken away, their livelihoods are at risk. This means that disputes over land are often a major cause of conflict. For people in these countries, clarity on access to land, land rights and forms of use is extremely important. However, so too are structural and power­political issues arising in relation to land as a resource, for whoever controls the land secures his (or her) social, economic and political influence.

Increasing pressure on land These various causes of conflict are exacerbated by global crises such as the food crisis and climate change. The world’s growing population, urbanisation, industrialization and increasing demand for land – also from foreign investors – to build infrastructure and economic zones are factors which are making land an increasingly scarce resource.

FriEnt Activities

Land as a conflict issue Stories like this one, from Cameroon, are familiar all over the world. The economic value is just one dimension of the significance of land. The socio­cultural, religious and spiritu­ al dimensions are particularly important: in many African legends, the land where a person is born is compared with an umbilical cord – it creates an unbreakable bond through­ out life. In many myths, the land is seen as a channel through which it is possible to contact the ancestors.

12

Land and Its Peace and Conflict Potential

FriEnt focuses on the linkages between various areas of develop­ ment cooperation, primarily in the field of rural development, and the conflict context, and identifies the potential for conflict prevention and crisis management. Topics addressed at the events held to date include: Land Conflicts in India (February 2009) The Phenomenon of “Land Grabbing” in a Conflict Context (June 2010) Conflict­Sensitive Aspects of Migration and Resource Management (September 2010)

Refugees and internally displaced persons need new settle­ ment areas, and therefore also land, to sustain their liveli­ hoods. Regional mobility is increasing at the same time: people are leaving their home regions in search of better conditions of life and a better environment. One billion peo­ ple worldwide, according to the UN, are migrants, including 740 million people who have been displaced on their own continent. There is a massive demand for land in both rural and urban areas. The widely divergent interests and compe­ tition for access to land are increasing, intensifying the con­ flict potential of land and water resources.

Utilising peace potentials Rural regions are therefore areas where conflicts frequently occur. While some of these conflicts simmer beneath the surface, others escalate into violence. At the same time, these spaces are the key to development, food security and

What is the significance of traditional mechanisms in achiev­ ing a peaceful solution to land conflicts?

Traditional authorities are deeply rooted in the local and cultural context and know what is needed to identify solu­ tions to land conflicts. Their judgments enjoy a high level of acceptance among the parties concerned. For that reason, the traditional systems have gained importance again in many contexts. There has been a dramatic change in exter­ nal perceptions of these systems in recent years as well.

Which opportunities and risks are associated with these legal systems?

These institutions have legitimacy at local level and are embedded in the local culture, and this is essential for sus­ tainable conflict resolution. Traditional laws have major advantages compared with state legal systems in this respect, also because of their flexibility and adaptability. One major risk is the susceptibility of the public courts to corruption, however – and this is increasingly affecting traditional

quality of life. Land and water resources are always at the heart of this process. The correlations between the peaceful management of existing land conflicts and the prospects for sustainable and effective development are self­evident.

authorities as well. In Somaliland, for example, some of the powerful and lucrative positions are bought and sold, which means that they lack any traditional legitimacy. It is almost impossible to achieve sustainable solutions to conflicts with these authorities.

Traditional authorities to guarantee the peaceful resolution of land conflicts?

Which challenges arise, as a result, for governmental and civil society actors?

It is not easy to identify the “right” local institutions and determine how their capacities can be developed in the most effective and sustainable way. What’s more, traditional institutions do not make their decisions on the basis of our normative principles. Patient cooperation with traditional authorities, but also with women’s groups and public institu­ tions at the same time, is therefore especially important in order to bring about long­term change and create new options.

Civil society actors have a key role to play in this context.

Governance structures play a key role in the management of land. In this context, it is often the traditional conflict reso­ lution mechanisms which are the only properly functioning structures and are therefore used to regulate land issues, especially in remote areas, which attract little interest from central government. But even here, vested interests and legal vacuums can create conflicts. Jan Stockbrügger, up to February 2011 researcher at the Institute for Development and Peace (INEF), has studied this issue.

Land and Its Peace and Conflict Potential

13

Cambodia: State and civil society cooperation in the management of land conflicts Cambodia is engaged in a lengthy process of transition out of the post­conflict phase towards modern democracy.

However, there are still many obstacles to overcome. They include, not least, the process of reckoning with the past and the legacy of the brutal Khmer Rouge regime, creating better educational opportunities, and developing the coun­ try’s infrastructure. The vast majority of Cambodians depend on agriculture to support their livelihoods, and there are very few alternatives. Access to land is therefore vitally important. Legal vacuums and a growing number of cases of expropriation (land grabbing) are worsening poverty in Cam­ bodia, putting land conflicts firmly on the agenda.

Vera Köppen, until April 2011 specialist at GIZ’s Sector Project Land Management, Eschborn, and Jutta Werdes, Programme Officer for Cambodia and The Philippines at the Church Development Service (EED), Bonn, describe the significance of land issues and conflicts in their work.

Which types of land conflict play a role in Cambodia?

Vera Köppen: The Cambodian government declared the strengthening the rural economy through land reforms as one of its priorities. This process is supported through Germany’s bilateral development cooperation with Cambodia. Our proj­ ect focuses especially on land registration and assignment of land titles, for in Cambodia, land conflicts often arise as a result of conflicting claims from various user groups based on informal rights. In most cases, no account is taken of indige­ nous rights, and this creates further conflict potential. There are also frequent inconsistencies between traditional and for­ mal rights in relation to the issue of legal access to land.

Conflicts are also caused by the expulsion of specific groups of land users by investors. The asymmetrical power relations between these stakeholders, and hence their unequal scope to influence decision­making, are especially problematical in this context.

14

Land and Its Peace and Conflict Potential

Jutta Werdes: Almost all our partners have to deal with land conflicts at both the local and the national level. Land grab­ bing is a particular problem: it is being carried out on a wide scale by international companies or by local elites, politicians and the military, who see land as a lucrative way of enriching themselves. However, land conflicts not only arise in rural areas, where farmers are being expelled in order to free up land for mining projects, rubber plantations or other pro­ duction sites. They also occur in urban settings, where people are being expelled to make way for construction projects.

Some of these people are resettled elsewhere, but others are not. At present, around half a million Cambodians are living with the threat of expulsion.

What are the implications for the work of state and civil society organisations?

Vera Köppen: Governments and their organisations must bring influence to bear at all levels – at national, district and local level. It is important, in this context, to plan measures in accordance with the “do no harm” principle and assess their unintended consequences. This applies especially to conflicts which are not immediately visible. Generally speak­ ing, it is the intergovernmental negotiations which mark out the framework for what is feasible in official development assistance. German development cooperation in Cambodia has focused for some time on the systematic registration of land in rural areas, but it has also provided support for the development and implementation of new legislation, which naturally has a bearing on the situation in urban areas as well: after all, the legal frameworks do not just apply to rural regions. However, in Cambodia, areas affected by land conflicts are initially removed from the land registration process. This creates a dilemma, as official development assistance cannot compass the Cambodian government. The challenge is to act within the agreed framework while work­

ing for change within this framework and through a process of negotiation.

Jutta Werdes: The legal vacuum poses a major challenge.

Although legislation exists, there are major deficits in terms of compliance. Grassroots organisations are resisting what they regard as illegal land grabbing. Their members are being arrested and the groups themselves are criminalised.

The Cambodian government forces are clamping down on a massive scale. Many civil society groups are acting as advo­ cates for the grassroots organisations and are supporting

their campaigns. Others are seeking dialogue with the government. A new and restrictive NGO law has been intro­ duced which massively curtails the scope for civil society engagement. Here too, NGO networks and grassroots organisations have protested and have attempted to nego­ tiate at regional level in order to bring about changes to the law. Besides the lack of access to justice, the legacy of the past is also a problem in Cambodia, as most farmers were not granted land titles during the land distribution at the end of the Pol Pot regime. Faced with a powerful coalition of politicians, the military and international finance, they have no proof that they are the lawful owners of the land.

What’s more, there is no sign of any social responsibility on the part of the investors.

What role does cooperation between state and civil society actors have to play in the peaceful resolution of land con­ flicts?

Vera Köppen: It is important to identify the different roles of state and civil society actors and develop complementary approaches on this basis. Official development assistance has a particularly important mediating role to play. Issues which do not form part of the intergovernmental negotiations must be taken up by civil society, which must consistently emphasise the scope for political solutions to these problems.

A key challenge is to remind the Cambodian government

of the commitments that it has undertaken voluntarily in the international arena and demand that it takes action to fulfil them.

Jutta Werdes: It is essential for the Cambodian stakeholders to work together, with a particular focus on ensuring that the dialogue continues. It is also important to create oppor­ tunities for documentation. Civil society must keep this topic in the spotlight so that the Cambodian government comes under further pressure and is forced to take action.

International networking, advocacy and lobbying by interna­ tional actors vis­à­vis their own governments will focus attention at the international level. At the same time, the direct approach to the private sector must continue.

Land and Its Peace and Conflict Potential

15

Indonesia: Protecting human and land rights

Despite comprehensive democratisation processes, the ending of violent conflicts and good economic growth in resource­ rich Indonesia, it has not yet been possible to reduce the country’s massive social inequalities. Much of the population lives below the poverty line. Furthermore, in rural regions, many people are increasingly affected by land grabbing to make way for palm oil plantations, driven by rising global demand for biofuels. In this field of tension between global change and competing local interests, conflicts over resources, land use and security of land tenure are intensifying. This is accompanied by a rise in human rights abuses. In the inter­ view below, Henry Schuermann, desk officer for Indonesia at Misereor, talks about the significance of land as a cause for conflict and the relevance of human rights for sustainable and peaceful development.

Are tensions over land in Indonesia increasing?

Yes, definitely! Issues relating to natural resources, land use and security of tenure are arising more and more frequently in our cooperation with partners in Indonesia. People are being expelled as a result of land grabbing by the government or corporations – not only in the provinces and rural areas but also in the cities. The palm oil plantations in Papua are an obvious example. The situation is exacerbated by a lack of capacities in the relevant authorities, corruption, and interest­led, clientelist policies.

From a human rights perspective, which factors must be given particular consideration in conflict transformation?

Mining or large­scale agricultural projects only bring lasting prosperity to a small minority of local people. By contrast, the majority are affected by ruthless overexploitation of resources, an accelerated process of internal migration and therefore also competition for jobs, and expulsion. The potential to generate impetus for sustainable peace and

16

Land and Its Peace and Conflict Potential

development is being wasted because investment is not cre­ ating jobs. Indigenous communities are particularly affected by the loss of their land, both as a source of food and income and as a cultural space. Infrastructural development intensi­ fies social tensions if immigrants benefit from this process more than the local population. Cultural values play an impor­ tant role in conflict transformation and in achieving a balance of interests at local level.

What are the key challenges for civil society actors?

Factors which are of particular relevance to land issues are the prevailing legal vacuums and intimidation by the security forces. A knowledge of local conditions is therefore essen­ tial, as is an established relationship of trust with local part­ ners. This is also the only way to enable potential threats and risks in sensitive areas such as social justice and human rights to be addressed openly. Unfortunately, the Indonesian government often does not fulfil its protective function to an adequate extent, and there is a lack of political will to implement existing legislation. Civil society actors therefore have a responsibility to demand government accountability.

FriEnt Activities The FriEnt Round Table on Indonesia was established in 2009.

Topical themes addressed to date include: Peace Processes in Papua – Challenges and Scope for Action (April 2009) Reform Processes in Papua – Between Violence and Dialogue (September 2009) Transition Processes in Aceh – Current Developments and their Significance for Peace and Development (April 2010) Potential of the EU­Indonesia Human Rights Dialogue for Peace and Development (October 2010)

South Africa: Land restitution between justice and development FriEnt Activities A pivotal aspect of the apartheid regime in South Africa was its racist system of land distribution. This system forced the majority African population onto just 13 per cent of the country’s land. This made it impossible to live off the land and ensured that they would become a captive labour pool, according to Nahla Valji from the Centre for the Study of Vio­ lence and Reconciliation (CSVR), South Africa, speaking at an international conference hosted by FriEnt in January 2010.

In the following interview, she explains how land is there­ fore central to the South African reconciliation and transfor­ mation process and must be embedded in a comprehensive strategy of reparation, poverty reduction and gender justice.

How was the land issue dealt with in the truth and reconciliation process in South Africa?

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission did not focus on structural inequalities, but this does not mean that no effort was made to address the land issue: the 1996 constitution established rights of access to land and land tenure. Land restitution and reform were dealt with by dedicated institu­ tions. In some cases, land restitution ceremonies were held which recognised the injustice that had occurred and were meant to be a sign of reconciliation. And yet the situation of those who were disadvantaged under the apartheid system has improved for very few. In many cases restitution has been in the form of money, which has then be spent on immediate needs. In some cases, the land which was handed back was sold on – but the profits were not invested sustainably.

How should land redistribution and restitution be integrated into the further development agenda?

Land reform should not only be implemented in order to guarantee basic rights or make good past injustice. It must also establish the basis for sustainable rural development.

Capacity building, infrastructural measures and community

At the international conference “New Horizons. Linking Development Cooperation and Transitional Justice for Sustainable Peace” on 27­28 January 2010, FriEnt and its mem­ bers identified linkages between transitional justice, develop­ ment cooperation and peacebuilding. The conference also host­ ed the workshop “Towards Deeper­rooted Justice: Addressing Land Issues in Post­Conflict Societies”.

development must therefore form part of a rural development strategy which links reparation with development and whose long­term aim is to dismantle structural inequalities and contribute to sustainable reconstruction and reconciliation.

The situation of particularly disadvantaged women needs to be improved as part of this process … … but women are now the real losers. Gender inequality is worsened in contexts of violence and in post­conflict settings.

Land restitution must be combined with land tenure reforms that are based on gender justice and safeguard women’s access to land. So it is important that the support measures also have an explicit gender focus if we want to compensate for discrimination, inequality and past injustice.

What are your recommendations to organisations operating at the interface between land, transitional justice and development cooperation?

Land restitution can only be effective if it is embedded in a comprehensive development agenda. It must also take account of gender issues, for otherwise, we risk neglecting a large element of the population and key aspects of the process. In this context, a wide range of actors have specific roles that they can play. I see this as an opportunity for FriEnt members.

Land and Its Peace and Conflict Potential

17

“There was a real sense of optimism”

For the last 10 years, FriEnt has promoted dialogue between state and civil society, initiated cooperation and supported capacity building among its members. In the following inter­ view, two of FriEnt’s founders – Adolf Kloke­Lesch, former Head of the Peacebuilding and Crisis Prevention Division at the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Develop­ ment (BMZ), and Jürgen Nikolai, former Head of the Middle East and Africa Department at Misereor – look back on the Working Group’s early days.

How did the idea of setting up FriEnt come about?

Adolf Kloke­Lesch: The topics of conflict prevention and peacebuilding were still very new to the Ministry in the late 1990s – and we started small. One of the main starting points was a cross­sectoral evaluation of German development cooperation carried out in 1997 in a number of conflict coun­ tries, including Sri Lanka, Rwanda and El Salvador. In my division at the BMZ, there was less than half a post available to deal with this new task. Other organisations were similar­ ly under­resourced. At the same time, there was a real sense of optimism and a desire to work together to bring about change. Civil society, was very active, and I thought to myself: “If we work together, we can achieve much more.”

Jürgen Nikolai: Even at that time, regular consultations were taking place between church development agencies and the BMZ. It was in this context that Mr Kloke­Lesch raised the question: “What about peace? How can we work together on this issue?” The wars in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia had made it very clear that we could no longer adopt a “business as usual” approach to development cooperation – we needed to give much higher priority to peacebuilding.

Civil society networks already existed, of course, but the idea of joining forces with the BMZ and GTZ was new.

18

FriEnt’s 10th Anniversary

What were your expectations of the Working Group?

Jürgen Nikolai: Our model was “ES 31”, a working group on poverty reduction established by the BMZ, governmental aid agencies, church­based organisations, and NGOs. This direct collaboration was intended to stimulate change. We felt it was important to work together on the basis of part­ nership, without any dominance by the BMZ. And the issue of reflecting our own responsibility for conflicts, as it were – was very close to our hearts. Moreover, FriEnt offered the opportunity for us as a non­governmental organisation to gain more of a hearing with the BMZ. There was also a great deal of curiosity: we wanted to utilise the other FriEnt mem­ bers’ expertise, engage in international networking and con­ duct a dialogue with other ministries.

Adolf Kloke­Lesch: The cooperation with specific individuals from the various organisations really was important. I felt it was essential to embed these topics more firmly in the sys­ tem and make the importance of development­oriented peace work visible. To do that, we needed a “critical mass” – a team which was adequately resourced and had the expertise to work with other institutions. This also allowed us to avoid any duplication of work. Creating a process of mutual openness and recognition was even more important.

At that time, there was real scepticism in the “peace scene” about the “development scene”, and the foundations, for their part, had some doubts about the newly established Civil Peace Service (ZFD). So FriEnt’s role was to help strength­ en mutual understanding, create synergies between the various organisations, pool their expertise where this was likely to be beneficial, and highlight the diversity of conflict sensitive development and peacebuilding.

Jürgen Nikolai is former Head of the Middle East and Africa Department at Misereor

FriEnt highlights: an overview 2001: Founding of FriEnt by BMZ, GTZ, FES, EED, KZE/Misereor, Civil Peace Service Group and German Platform for Peaceful Conflict Management /INEF | Formation of the steering com­ mittee | Initial deployments of staff to set up the FriEnt team 2002: Adoption of initial thematic priorities: “Economies of Violence”, “Informal Networks”, and “Religion and Conflicts” | FriEnt Impulses and website launched | First public event discusses new approaches for joint peacebuilding strategies

Adolf Kloke­Lesch is Member of the GIZ Management Board

2003: Publication of FriEnt’s first Methodological Guide: Network and Actor Analysis | Friedrich Naumann Foundation joins FriEnt | Workshop: What makes successful strategic partnerships in peacebuilding? | Nepal and Middle East Round Tables launched 2004: FriEnt moves into Phase II with a new structure | External evaluation confirms its relevance and potential | Transitional Justice and Colombia are added to the portfolio 2005: First of 10 briefings on development cooperation, religion(s) and conflicts | Workshop and briefing on peace­ and conflict­sensitive planning and evaluation methods 2006: Development and security, as well as spoilers, are adopted as further priority topics | Sudan/Chad included in portfolio | External evaluation recommends a broader engagement in international processes

What were the initial stumbling blocks?

Adolf Kloke­Lesch: There weren’t any major stumbling blocks, although in the Ministry, people wondered what FriEnt was meant to achieve. The political commitment was important here. Within civil society, there was a tangible concern about the possible dominance of the BMZ and a fear of coordina­ tion. The Working Group could only evolve if we succeeded in building trust and creating a win­win situation. That meant setting up a self­coordinated, non­hierarchical team whose members work both for FriEnt and their own organi­ sation. From my personal perspective, the Working Group – and the steering committee – was a very important discus­ sion space, where it was possible to explore and progress topics and issues which could only be addressed on a joint basis. That, in my view, is where FriEnt adds value.

Jürgen Nikolai: As far as peace issues were concerned, we had to be persuasive in the early days. Nonetheless, my organisation was generally very receptive to the idea of set­ ting up the Working Group. All the stakeholders were aware, too, that there were rivalries and that sensitivities had to be respected on all sides. Not least, this respect ensured that the FriEnt team did not just become a “BMZ team”. We always dealt very constructively with differences of opinion among the FriEnt founder members. There was a real sense of team spirit, and that undoubtedly contributed to FriEnt’s success.

2007: Heinrich Böll Foundation joins FriEnt | FriEnt prepares two workshops and four papers on peace and justice for an international conference in Nuremberg | International net­ working is intensified during the German EU Council Presi­ dency | FriEnt hosts a panel discussion as part of the interna­ tional celebrations of UN Peace Day for the first time | Conflict analysis on Chad 2008: Strategic Plan for Phase III envisages a stronger political role | FriEnt works on the EU and peacebuilding, land conflicts and the South Caucasus region | Workshop on challenges for conflict­sensitive development cooperation in the context of the Paris Declaration | Kenya after the post­election violence | Study on strategic approaches to peacebuilding in Lebanon published | FriEnt supports exchange of experiences among civil peace service experts working in the Great Lakes region 2009: International workshop discusses opportunities and risks associated with elections in Africa | New publication “Reports 2007­2008” sets new communication priorities | Indonesia Round Table established | Problems associated with private security companies raised as an issue | Peacebuilding para­ digms critiqued 2010: Two­day international conference on transitional justice and development | Podcast and interviews about the confer­ ence | Discussion sessions in Burundi, Kenya and Tanzania about election processes | 50th Impulse article published 2011: ZIF joins FriEnt | New Name and new logo | Launch of an essay series on challenges in peace and development | FriEnt celebrates its 10th anniversary

FriEnt’s 10th Anniversary

19

Perspectives for linking peacebuilding and development

There’s no doubt that a great deal has happened since con­ flict prevention and peacebuilding began to attract more interest in the development discourse some 10 years ago.

The founders of FriEnt – and many others – have achieved a number of successes: they have established structures, devel­ oped new tools and methods and mainstreamed peace­ building in development policy.

This year’s World Development Report: Conflict, Security, and Development bears witness to this progress. It summarises key findings from research and practice. It also attests to a trend which has become increasingly evident over recent years: the ever­closer linkage between foreign, security and development policy. It is already apparent that with its trench­ ant demand for more “citizen security, justice and jobs”, the report is likely to become the new star in the security and development debate.

Reunifying discourse and practice And yet it is obvious to anyone working at the interface between peace and development that there are also weak­ nesses in the report – and in the debates, conducted over recent years, about the options for action by development actors. For despite a growing awareness of the complexity of crisis and post­conflict situations, despite the broad under­ standing of “human security” in the development policy context, and despite the efforts to address the “structural causes” of violent conflict, there has been a narrowing and outward shift of the debate about the fields of action of con­ flict sensitive development and peacebuilding in recent years.

What, precisely, is meant by this “narrowing and outward shift”? In essence, it means that the majority of develop­

20

FriEnt’s 10th Anniversary

ment actors are focused on the Millennium Development Goals and the Aid Effectiveness Agenda, but rarely discuss peace and “do no harm”. A small minority is engaged in dia­ logue with foreign and security policy­makers about fragility, governance, security sector and judicial reform, but they rarely touch on the linkage between health, education or rural development and peacebuilding in their dialogue with other development actors.

Parallel discourses and demarcations between sectors and policy areas are by no means uncommon. There is no doubt that this is due, not least, to limited capacities, but it is also a question of priorities. The debates about Afghanistan, whole­of­government strategies and broader security have absorbed so many resources at governmental and civil socie­ ty level that very little room was left for thinking about solidifying the somewhat vague notion of “structural conflict prevention” and sector­specific mainstreaming. If it is assumed, however, that inequitable access to economic or natural resources, political participation or education is often the cause of violent conflict, it is clear that “classic” development policy sectors offer great potential for preventive or peace­ building activities based on appropriate peace­ and conflict­ sensitive planning.

Actors engaged in peacebuilding and development must in future expand and clarify the discourse and practice in two directions: on the one hand, it is important to resume the internal dialogue and, together with colleagues, expand the potentials into practical action, and on the other, they must continue the interdisciplinary dialogue on peace and devel­ opment that spans numerous policy fields. The crucial ques­ tion, in this context, is whether this external dialogue will focus on “citizen security, justice and jobs”, with develop­ ment­oriented peace work being closely associated with

Author: Natascha Zupan is Head of the FriEnt Team.

or driver of democratic reform processes, all­partiality and mediation – all these pillars of sustainable peacebuilding are based, not least, on our own experiences of peaceful trans­ formation after the Second World War. But despite the warnings about blueprints, and although context­specific strategy development is regarded as having central importance, the majority of external actors resort to tried and tested approaches, often as a result of their own self­imposed time pressure. These approaches include truth commissions and tribunals, for example.

judicial and security sector reform and quick impact eco­ nomic measures in future, or whether a more comprehen­ sive understanding of justice and security can be estab­ lished.

Remaining critical and innovative Since the mid 1990s, development cooperation has focused on two main aspects. Alongside “structural conflict preven­ tion”, it has been – and is still – about developing the capac­ ities of institutions and mechanisms which facilitate non­vio­ lent conflict resolution. Democracy­building, human rights protection and reconciliation are now firmly established in development cooperation.

An equally well­established but less obvious space is occu­ pied by the theories of change associated with these approaches: reconciliation through dialogue, a liberal demo­ cratic model, the rule of law, civil society as a bridge­builder

But surely, people’s concepts of justice and truth­finding may well vary in the highly disparate contexts of Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Colombia. And which steps must be taken by civil society in order to act as a bridge­builder in a deeply divided, hierarchically structured society? Does dialogue genuinely lead to reconciliation?

Doesn’t it sometimes deepen the rifts between sections of

society because inequality and marginalisation continue to exist? And just how credibly can we advocate for peace and the universality of human rights in places like Afghanistan, Bosnia or Palestine? This is not a plea for relativisation of values or a withdrawal from politically sensitive fields of action. On the contrary: ultimately, peace is intimately linked with values – and depending on the context, it therefore runs an even greater risk of being devalued.

If conflict sensitive development and peacebuilding are to remain credible in future and support reform processes on a sustainable basis, they must face up to the challenge of ques­ tioning its own paradigms. It is time to pause, take stock, and find new ways forward in our strategic development.

FriEnt’s 10th Anniversary

21

Fixing obstacles blocking a multi­stakeholder approach to peace and development Fostering peace and development in conflict­affected regions requires a citizen oriented state working in partnership with an active civil society. The slow progress toward both peace and sustainable development is due in part toward conflict­ ing and uncoordinated approaches between these diverse stakeholders. While some governments are eager to link with nongovernmental groups in a “whole of society” or “com­ prehensive approach,” many civil society organizations around the world challenge this approach, calling for more separa­ tion between government and civil society. They fear that short­term imperatives and are hijacking funds needed for a long­term approach to sustainable peace and development.

Moving toward a comprehensive approach requires first diagnosing the key issues and obstacles to stakeholder coor­ dination. Current obstacles include unbalanced approaches to statebuilding, faulty conceptions of civil society, and fun­ damental disagreements about the overall mission or goal.

ruption and ineffective services. State building exercises in Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from this distorted strategy that fundamentally misunderstands and underestimates the role of civil society in fostering development, peace, stability, and democracy.

Civil Society: From “Pacification” to “Force Multipliers” Civil society organizations (CSOs) foster democratic dialogue, tolerance and trust between groups, work in partnership with the state to carry out important public services, and hold the state accountable for its responsibilities to citizens and transparent governance. An active local civil society at the national and community levels is an indicator of a func­ tioning and democratic state. Just recently this has been recognized by the OECD in their Statebuilding Guidance. But historically, some government manuals rather provided guidance on how to “pacify” civil society.

Conceptions of Statebuilding The tasks of fostering governance, development and peace are sometimes referred to as “statebuilding.” The interna­ tional community’s statebuilding efforts overwhelmingly focus on building state structures and capacities while often doing relatively little to support or make room for civil socie­ ty. State structures and capacities are important. But this “statebuilding” approach does not on its own foster good governance, development and peace.

Ideally, a citizen­oriented state fulfills basic functions in ser­ vice of its citizens. Yet too often the state serves elite interests at the expense of a disempowered public. Without pressure from civil society, state institutions have free reign for cor­

22

FriEnt’s 10th Anniversary

More recently, some refer to civil society as “force multipli­ ers” or “project implementers.” This conception treats civil society as government contractors or agents. Too many gov­ ernments still actively exclude civil society from assessments, planning, and policymaking related to governance, develop­ ment and peace. Civil society organization adamantly con­ test being called “force multipliers,” asserting that it makes it impossible for civil society to play an independent role in providing humanitarian assistance to all sides in a conflict or a role in challenging government policy or monitoring gov­ ernment corruption.

Pacification and force multiplier conceptions both harm civil society. Civil society is best able to contribute to stable gov­

with the human security of local people. Not heeding local citizen’s calls for change undermines the legitimacy of the inter­ national communities’ stated interests in supporting democracy and freedom. Governments cannot maintain their own legiti­ macy if they support these values only when the values are convenient to their short term political or economic interests.

Shared Understanding and Inclusive Planning Required Author: Professor Lisa Schirch is Director of 3P Human Security: Partners for Peacebuilding Policy (for­ merly 3D Security Initiative) and Research Professor, Center for Justice & Peacebuilding at the Eastern Mennonite University.

ernance and durable peace when there is adequate civil society space. On this basis it will be possible to bring differ­ ent entry points and knowledge together and to develop a real comprehensive approach.

Stability for Whom and What Purpose?

A third challenge to state–civil society coordination is con­ flicting definitions of terms and missions. For example, in the early days of the popular uprising in Egypt, Western govern­ ments called for “stability” even though Egyptian citizens were clearly calling for “change.” The discourse of stability requires democratic accountability; a questioning of “stabili­ ty for whom and for what purpose?” Instead, civil society asks for a more principled approach supporting movements for regime change and genuine democracy.

Creating a truly multi­stakeholder approach requires several key steps: 1. Recognize the historic tensions between state and civil society definitions of peace. Given past experiences, civil society will question government motives to work for peace without a transparent discussion of the state’s other interests and how these either support or under­ mine human security.

2. Develop more rigorous criteria for assessing civil society’s consent for international interventions. Fostering demo­ cracy requires international interveners to practice what they preach by listening more closely to local civil society leaders.

3. Aim to develop shared assessments or understanding of driving factors and shared missions or purpose rather than seeking ‘whole of society’ joint action without civil society input at earlier planning phases.

FriEnt – as an established state­society partnership on equal footing – is a perfect platform in which to address these issues and promote joint learning and critical reflection. .

A state that is not citizen­oriented will inevitably come under public pressure. In this situation “stability” must not compete

FriEnt’s 10th Anniversary

23

Sharing knowledge – creating impetus

The most important criterion for FriEnt’s communication work, both internally and externally, is its practical relevance.

However, demonstrating this practical relevance, also in relation to academic or international discourses, pooling information in response to specific needs and facilitating the exchange of experience are ongoing challenges.

In 2009 and 2010, the monthly newsletter FriEnt Impulses, published 10 times a year, provided information about cur­ rent developments at FriEnt and its member organisations.

In a well­established mix of country and thematic priorities in Impulse articles numbered from 40 to 59, academics and practitioners explored current challenges and made recom­ mendations for action. The focus was on Sudan, Ethiopia, Georgia, Burundi, Nigeria, Nepal and Colombia, as well as climate change, land grabbing, elections, European peace­ building policy, armed violence reduction, women, peace and security, and the lack of a peace and conflict dimension in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

Over recent years, new approaches for the documentation of major events have been explored. For example, imme­ diately after the International Conference on Transitional Justice and Development, a podcast was available with interviews and a summary of key topics and outcomes.

The number of visitors to the FriEnt website is steadily increasing. The website thus remains one of FriEnt’s key information tools. Regular updates with relevant studies, analyses and opinion sharpen the focus of the website’s country­specific and thematic pages and enhance its profile as a portal. During the anniversary year, we want to reach even more people with our new and improved website and provide tailor­made information. We hope that its more accessible design will encourage people to use our services –

24

Sharing knowledge

for one of the main aims of the 10th anniversary celebra­ tions is to increase the visibility of the topics addressed by FriEnt and highlight its strengths and the contributions it makes to conflict sensitive development and peacebuilding.

Publications Frieden stiften weltweit ­ Millenniumsziele und Frieden als Kernaufgaben der Vereinten Nationen Dokumentation der Podiumsdiskussion zum Internationalen Friedenstag 2010 FriEnt, EED, FES | 2010 Die EU und Afrika – Potentiale für entwicklungspolitische Friedensarbeit FriEnt­Briefing 9/2010 Marc Baxmann | FriEnt | 2010 Conference Podcast „New Horizons“ FriEnt | 2010 New Horizons. Linking Development Cooperation and Transitional Justice for Sustainable Peace Conference Report: Issues and Challenges Sylvia Servaes, Natascha Zupan | FriEnt | 2010 Frieden stiften weltweit – Versöhnung und Verantwortung Dokumentation der Podiumsdiskussion zum Internationalen Friedenstag 2009 FriEnt, EED, FES | 2010 Ein zwiespältiges Verhältnis: Private Sicherheitsfirmen und Entwicklungszusammenarbeit FriEnt­Briefing 8/2010 Martin Kraft | FriEnt | 2010 Human Rights in Conflict – the Role of Civil Society Shur Conference | Natascha Zupan, Sylvia Servaes | FriEnt | 2009

FriEnt structure

Steering committee BMZ GIZ EED FES hbs KZE/Misereor Civil Peace Service Group Platform ZKB/INEF ZIF

Member

Acting Member

Dr. Ulla Mikota (Chair until January 2011) Christine Toetzke (Chair) Dr. Roman Poeschke Dr. Wolfgang Heinrich (Chair) Jürgen Stetten (until September 2010) Jochen Steinhilber Steffen Heizmann Michael Hippler Carsten Montag, forumZFD

Christine Toetzke (until January 2011)

Ulrich Frey, Platform ZKB Dr. Cornelia Ulbert , INEF Dr. Almut Wieland­Karimi

Dunja Brede Heiner Knauss Katharina Hofmann Dr. Kirsten Maas­Albert Norbert Dittrich Anne Storcks, AGEH (until December 2010) Bernd Rieche, AGDF

Tobias Pietz

Team Natascha Zupan Brigitte Kirschner Marc Baxmann Anja Justen, Civil Peace Service Group Martin Kraft, BMZ/GIZ (until August 2009) Caroline Kruckow, EED Jana Mittag, hbs (since Mai 2010) Marius Müller­Hennig, FES (since January 2010) Jost Pachaly, hbs (until December 2009) Bodo Schulze, BMZ/GIZ (since Dezember 2009) Sylvia Servaes, KZE/Misereor Angelika Spelten, Platform ZKB/INEF Dr. Andreas Wittkowsky, ZIF (since January 2011)

Head Office manager, Webmaster International Processes, Communication Indonesia, Education Middle East, Peacebuilding and Security South Caucasus, Land Conflicts Democracy Promotion, Conflict Resources UN, Peacebuilding and Security Peacebuilding Paradigms Middle East, Peacebuilding and Security, Education Nepal, Transitional Justice Kenya, Conflict Prevention Peace Operations, Peacebuilding and Security

FriEnt structure

25

FriEnt is a working group of:

Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH Church Development Service (EED) Friedrich­Ebert­Stiftung (FES) Heinrich­Böll­Stiftung (hbs) Catholic Central Agency for Development Aid/Misereor Civil Peace Service Group (CPS) German Platform for Peaceful Conflict Management/Institute for Development and Peace, University Duisburg­Essen (INEF) Center for International Peace Operations (ZIF)

Ziviler Friedensdienst Civil Peace Service