Home > Temaer > Krisehåndtering og rehabilitering > Verdi- og strategidokument

Verdi- og strategidokument

Med utgangspunkt i sin egen visjon har FORUT utformet prinsipper og retningslinjer for organisasjonens arbeid med konfliktsensitivitet, fredsbygging og forsoning. Hovedfokus i FORUTs innsats er samfunnsutvikling i den tro at et velutviklet sivilt samfunn i seg selv er fredsskapende.

Conflict Sensitivity,

Peacebuilding &

Reconciliation

FORUT Policy Paper[1]

Final draft: 24 April 2007

List of Acronyms

CBO Community Based Organisation

CEDAW Convention on Elimination of forms of Discrimination Against Women

CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child

CSO Civil Society Organisation

CWIN Child Workers in Nepal Concerned Centre

DAC (OECD) Development Assistance Committee

DDR Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegratrion (of former combatants)

DNH Do No Harm

ICC International Criminal Court

IDP Internally Displace Person

IOGT International Organisation of Good Templars

LFA Logical Framework Approach

MFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

SC (United Nations) Security Council

TRC (South African) Truth and Reconciliation Commission

UN United Nations

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

1. Introduction

VISION

FORUT’s vision is a world in peace and without poverty, where all are secured human rights and social justice, and where alcohol and drugs do not prevent people’s well being and fulfilment of human potential.

In FORUT’s vision statement a world in peace is one of the two primary goals, on par with a world without poverty. There is no conflict between these twin goals. Quite on the contrary, war and violence cause and exacerbate poverty while poverty is often one of the root causes of violent conflict. Peace and poverty eradication are therefore mutually interdependent development goals. This is also reflected in FORUT’s “Policy Document” from 2003, where a separate chapter is devoted to “Peace and reconciliation”.

Peace and reconciliation

Justification:
FORUT’s basis in the IOGT movement implies that working for peace is part of the ideological platform and organisational identity. With FORUT’s long experience from conflict-torn areas, we recognise the acute need for peace and reconciliation work. At the same time, we also acknowledge the complexity and depth of such conflicts and the limitations in our capacity to make noticeable impact. FORUT will work to involve competent resource persons if the situation allows for it. FORUT’s general approach will be to support meetings and dialogue between people on opposite sides of the conflict lines, to develop a peace and reconciliation culture within our own organisation and to encourage development of the same within our partner organisations. FORUT’s specific approach will be to organise interventions that explicitly aim to reduce conflict levels and to train in locally based conflict resolution.

Approaches:

• Uphold a FORUT organisation and staff with competence and understanding of the dynamics of peace and reconciliation work. Encourage the same within partner organisations.

• Arrange intra-communal, cross-conflict meetings and dialogue.

• Arrange workshops in conflict resolution and reconciliation at local levels.

• Support local, national and international networks and initiatives to foster peace.

(FORUT Policy Document, 2003)

This chapter distinguishes between a “general” and a “specific” approach to peace and reconciliation, which is based on a realisation that peace and reconciliation can be promoted on the one hand by how we carry out our development work (the general approach) as well as by specific interventions designed to promote peace and reconciliation. The general approach corresponds broadly to what is today usually termed conflict sensitivity, while the specific approach will encompass peacebuilding and reconciliation.

Since wars begin in the minds of people, it is in the minds of people that the defences of peace must be constructed.

- UNESCO constitution (1945)

Conflict and violence occur at all levels in society – from international wars to two people fighting each other. This document focuses on macro and meso level conflicts, i.e. intergroup violence, usually with socio-economic and political conflicts at its core. It does not focus on domestic violence or crime-related violence, although many approaches, theories and conflict management skills may be similar. Therefore, the guidelines in this document are to be followed in projects taking place in areas which experience, have recently experienced, or may be in danger of experiencing, intergroup violence. For other projects, the guidelines may still prove useful and relevant, but they are not obligatory.

There are many types of conflict that are relevant for development work:

Are we seeking power for power’s sake? Or are we seeking to make the world and our nation better places to live? If we seek the latter, violence can never provide the answer. The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increased hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

- Martin Luther King jr, African-American civil rights movement leader

Data conflicts may be caused by lack of information, misinformation or different interpretation.

ü Relationship conflicts may be cause by stereotypes, poor communication or repetitive negative behaviour.

ü Value conflicts may be caused by different ways of life, ideology or religion – or different criteria for judging behaviour

ü Interest conflicts may be caused by perceived or actual competition, or incompatible substantive interests.

ü Structural conflicts may be caused by unequal power or control over resources, or destructive patterns of behaviour or interaction.

The three latter types of conflicts are usually the more difficult to manage, and have the highest potential for leading to or exacerbating violence. Most development work, whether focused on service delivery or advocacy, impact on existing latent or open community conflict related to values, interests or structures. Housing schemes may affect who controls land and property. Livelihood projects may affect access to natural resources. Gender awareness trainings may challenge traditional values. Education projects may affect future distribution of power and wealth. Alcohol and drug awareness projects may challenge vested interests in industries and politics. Multi-ethnic collaboration may threaten those who build their power on fuelling nationalist sentiments and ethnic conflict.

2. Background

Terms and definitions

Conflict:

The result of parties disagreeing e.g. about the distribution of material or symbolic resources and acting on the basis of these perceived incompatibilities.[2]

Conflict (violent):

Resort to psychological or physical force to resolve a disagreement.[3]

Conflict sensitivity:

This means the ability of your organisation to: (a) understand the context in which you operate; (b) understand the interaction between your intervention and the context; and (c) act upon the understanding of this interaction, in order to avoid negative impacts and maximise positive impacts.[4]

Peacebuilding:

Measures designed to consolidate peaceful relations and strengthen viable political, socio-economic and cultural institutions capable of mediating conflict, and to strengthen other mechanisms that will either create or support the necessary conditions for sustained peace.[5]

Reconciliation:

A process through which a society moves from a divided past to a shared future.[6]

(Each definition listed is only one of many possible definitions of each term, and the choice of definition is not meant to exclude alternative definitions. They are chosen simply because they are found to be useful.)

The Golden Rule:

Christianity:
All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 7:1.

Buddhism:
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Udana-Varga 5,1.

Hinduism:
This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.
Mahabharata 5,1517.

Islam:
No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
Sunnah.

The nature of wars and violent conflicts has gone through major changes over the last 100 years. The 20^th century was characterised by two “World Wars” (although the first one was actually European), followed by the Cold War and decolonisation. After the Cold War most violent conflicts have been intra-state rather than inter-state and most casualties have been civilians rather than combatants. Poor and marginalised people, especially women and children, bear the brunt of armed conflict, and are therefore in special need of protection.

In 2005 there were 17 major armed conflicts in 16 locations, of which none were inter-state conflicts. Since the end of the cold war, there have been 57 major armed conflicts, but the good news is that there has been a steady decline since 1999 and the figure from 2005 is the lowest since the cold war. [7]

The new patterns of violent conflict have also had consequences for development assistance and humanitarian aid. As the majority of the conflicts are intra-state and the majority of victims are civilians, civil society organisations (CSOs) can no longer maintain a distance from the causes, actors and dynamics of violent conflict. Furthermore, ending violence is a precondition for development and poverty eradication in conflict areas. Hence, development CSOs cannot pursue their goals without at the same time seeking an end to violent conflict. This has caused the UN, governments, researchers and CSOs to look closer into what role they could and should play in “conflict areas”.[8] A main conclusion is that it is not sufficient for a developoment actor to address root causes of conflict through development projects, but that dealing with more immediate causes, actors and dynamics is also necessary in order to achieve an end to violence and hence a basis for long-term development.

There are three types of response options for development actors when they find themselves in a conflict area:

Working around conflict: looking at violent conflict as a risk factor to be avoided or mitigated.
Working in conflict: trying to avoid having a negative effect on the conflict (e.g. Do No Harm)
Working on conflict: being aware that all development co-operation may also contribute to peacebuilding

The three response option are not mutually excluding, as one should indeed at the same time look at avoiding negative impacts of the conflict on the intervention (1), avoiding negative impacts of the intervention on the conflict (2), and achieving positive impacts of the intervention on the conflict (3).

2.1 Peacebuilding as a new term in global politics

The term “peacebuilding” was introduced to the international political agenda in 1992 by the UN report “An Agenda for Peace. Preventive Diplomacy, Peacemaking and Peacekeeping” and further developed in the UN position paper “Supplement to an Agenda for Peace” in 1995. The UN has continued to develop its policies in this area through several reports and Security Council (SC) resolutions. The Norwegian government has put particular emphasis on SC Resolution 1325 (2000) on women, peace and security. The UN policy-making work has also been followed up by other intergovernmental organisations, such as the OECD/DAC and the World Bank. All these documents emphasise or imply that the approach must be comprehensive and multi-layered for peacebuilding to succeed, and that there is therefore a strong link between development and peacebuilding. The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs adopted in 2004 a strategic framework called “Peacebuilding – A Development Perspective” which institutionalises this link in Norwegian foreign policy. This framework states that peacebuilding has three mutually reinforcing dimensions: (1) security; (2) political development; and (3) social and economical development. It follows from this framework that peace is not the same as absence of war: peacebuilding deals with building a peace which is just and sustainable.

2.2 The introduction of conflict sensitive development

The thinking of researchers and development practitioners developed rapidly in parallel with these political developments. A breakthrough project was “Do No Harm” by Collaborative for Development Action, which in 1999 resulted in the book “Do No Harm. How Aid Can Support Peace – Or War”. A key finding from that project was that development or humanitarian assistance in a situation of violent conflict becomes part and parcel of the conflict. Assistance can never have zero impact on a violent conflict (or vice versa). It will necessarily interact with the context of conflict and influence it in various ways – positive and negative. Since then, “Do No Harm” has become a catchphrase for conflict sensitive approaches and this field has been further developed by a numerous studies, tools, handbooks and guidelines. The phrase “Do No Harm” is, however, somewhat misleading, as it leads the reader to believe that the focus should only be on ensuring that development assistance does not worsen or exacerbate conflict. The Do No Harm approach does, however, put equal emphasis on ensuring that development assistance does reduce conflict and support local capacities for peace whenever possible.

At times, CSOs consciously contribute to bringing “hidden” or latent conflicts into the open, for example by empowering oppressed and marginalised group so that they are able to voice their grievances and concerns. This is often the case with right-based approaches, with their focus on advocacy efforts that challenge governments as duty-bearers. This does not, however, mean that rights-based approaches are not conflict sensitive. Quite on the contrary, it is often necessary to bring latent conflicts into the open in order to achieve their nonviolent transformation. The problem is not conflict itself, but violence as a means to resolve them. People have a right to a life free from violence and fear of violence in the same way as they have a right to a life without poverty. Nevertheless, one must take particular care that rights-based approaches are conflict sensitive, in order to avoid adverse effects on the right-holders from counter-forces that are mobilised against their demands.

2.3 Peacebuilding vs. conflict sensitivity

I hate it when they say, ‘He gave his life for his country’. Nobody gives their life for anything. We steal the lives of these kids. We take it away from them. They don’t die for the honour and glory of their country. We kill them.

- Gene LaRoque, US admiral and, later, dissident

The border between the two may indeed be blurred in many cases, as development may contribute to building peace and peacebuilding may make development possible. The peacebuilding framework of the Norwegian MFA does certainly include many types of measures that are usually regarded as traditional development work. In the end, perhaps the most useful distinction focuses on context and intent. Whenever an assistance programme takes place in a context of violent conflict (or pre- or post-conflict) and the main objective of the programme is to contribute to sustainable peace, it may be labelled peacebuilding. Such programmes will often, based on a conflict analysis, target structural/root causes of conflict, attitudes and actions of main actors, and/or the dynamics of organised violence itself. It will be based on a theory of change where the input and activities of the agency are presumed to lead to a reduction in violence and/or building just and sustainable peace. While, whenever a programme has humanitarian and/or development main objectives, it should not be labelled peacebuilding. One must then, however, ensure that the development programme is conflict sensitive – which means that as a minimum requirement it does not harm, and as an optimal result it may exploit windows of opportunity to reduce violence and contribute to sustainable peace as a side-effect of the development results.

Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding (Norwegian MFA)
Security	Political development	Social and economic development
Disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration	Support for political and administrative authorities and structures	Repatriation and reintegration of refugees and IDPs
Humanitarian mine action	Reconciliation	Reconstruction of infrastructure and important public functions
Control of small arms and light weapons	Good governance, democracy and human rights	Social development: education and health
Security system reform	Civil society, including the media	Economic development: private sector development, employment, trade and investment
	Judicial processes and truth commissions

2.4 Reconciliation as an ingredient in peacebuilding

Reconciliation is really a subset of peacebuilding, based on the belief that finding a way to deal with a divided past, and healing the psychological wounds of conflict, is a precondition for achieving a sustainable and lasting peace and prevent a return to violent conflict. It is also an alternative to revenge, which will only perpetuate the viscous circle of violence. The study and design of reconciliation processes received a boost with the contribution of the South African “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” (TRC) in achieving a peaceful transition to democracy. An alternative path to dealing with past crimes is exemplified by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the war crime tribunals for Rwanda and former Yugoslavia. A reconciliation process, however, is much more than the TRC or tribunals. International IDEA’s reconciliation handbook[9] identifies four instruments of reconciliation: healing, restorative justice, truth-telling and reparation. Together these ideally contribute to peaceful coexistence, trust, empathy and a culture of democracy.

3. FORUT’s approach to conflict, peace and reconciliation

FORUT has considerable experience from working in areas affected by violent conflict, but less experience on working on violent conflict (i.e. peacebuilding). Sri Lanka is the most prominent example, where FORUT has been working before during and after the civil war, during the relative calm after the ceasefire agreement in 2002, and during the escalation of hostilities taking place since 2006. FORUT has also been working in Sierra Leone and Nepal (through our partner organisation CWIN) during the armed conflicts that took place in those countries, as well as in the present (2007) post-conflict phase.

MISSION

FORUT’s mission is to fight poverty and to mobilise for a world with more justice and solidarity. We want to enhance the quality of life of the people through their participation in development processes, advocacy and political awareness.

It follows from FORUT’s mission statement that FORUT is primarily a development CSO although the phrase “…a world in peace and without poverty…” in FORUT’s vision statement signals equal importance to the areas of peacebuilding and development. The primacy of development issue is evident in FORUT’s mission statement, which focuses on poverty eradication and other traditional development issues. FORUT’s approach to conflict, peace and reconciliation should therefore have FORUT’s identity and expertise as a development CSO as its foundation, while being ambitious when it comes to using development work to also work towards the goal of a world in peace.

It is also evident from FORUT’s mission statement that its approach to development contains many elements that impact on conflicts, from local to national level. FORUT’s focus on local mobilisation, advocacy and political awareness-raising aims at empowering individuals and communities in order to enable them to demand that governments and other duty bearers grant them their rights and fulfil their needs. Training in negotiation, mediation and other relevant conflict management skills may, for example, be crucial for such strategies to by successful and conflict sensitive. Development programmes also provide excellent opportunities for creating meeting places for people from different sides of a conflict, where they can work together for common objectives. Conflict sensitiviy is of course all the more important in potentially bridge-building projects which include people who are normally divided by conflict.

The point of non-violence is to build a floor, a strong new floor, beneath which we can no longer sink. A platform which stands a few feet above napalm, torture, exploitation, poison gas, A and H bombs, the works. Give humans a decent place to stand.

- Joan Baez, US folk singer and activist

FORUT’s focus on poverty reduction and participatory development processes also has a potential to contribute to peacebuilding, both because it helps remove poverty as a root cause of conflict and because broad participation in itself may reduce local conflicts and involve several conflicting groups in a joint process towards objectives which benefit all involved. In the worst case, however, this potential may never be fulfilled, for example if conflicts arise about choice of beneficiaries or if important groups feel excluded from the development process. A premium must therefore always be place on inclusiveness, transparency and accountability.

As a summary, FORUT’s mission statement expresses a clear commitment towards contributing to a culture of peace among our partner communities, both by addressing root causes of conflict, by reducing vulnerability and violence, and by empowering violence-affected individuals and communities to enable them to withstand the effects of violent conflict, advocate for their rights and resolve their conflicts non-violently.

3.1 Conflict sensitivity

For any development organisation, the minimum requirement is that it is conflict sensitive. This does not imply that FORUT is to become a peacebuilding organisation, but that the organisation improves the way it does what it is already doing – with regard to how its work interfaces with the conflict(s) in the contexts in which it is working. This improvement involves both minimising potential negative effects of development assistance on the conflict, maximising potential positive effects of development assistance on the conflict, and reducing potential adverse effects of the conflict on the development assistance.

The path to achieving this is to mainstream conflict sensitivity as a crosscutting issue-area in FORUT. Mainstreaming requires development of relevant skills among staff, development of systems and tools to deal with the issue, and last but not least, development of an organisational culture where conflict sensitivity is seen as useful and necessary.

Conflict sensitivity means that FORUT must understand the context in which it operates, understand the interaction between its interventions and the context, and use this understanding to avoid negative impacts and maximise positive impacts.

3.1.1 Understanding the context

The basis for understanding the context is to carry out a conflict analysis, and to update it regularly. Many conflict analysis tools and approaches exist, with different foci, strengths and weaknesses. It is important to choose a tool (or a combination of tools) that are suitable for the organisation as well as the context to be analysed, and to allocate sufficient time for a proper utilisation of the tool(s). It is also important to include as many stakeholders as possible in the analysis (FORUT staff, partner organisations, beneficiaries, authorities etc.). The quality of the analysis will be a function of the skills of FORUT staff, the appropriateness of the tool(s), the inclusiveness of the process and the time allocated.

A typical conflict analysis will at least focus on:

ü The main actors involved, who have been, are, or may become involved in organised violence – their interests, goals, positions, capacities and relationships.

ü The main causes of conflict, both root/structural causes, proximate causes and triggers of violence.

ü The profile of the conflict, which may be difficult to distinguish from causes but are more linked to the broader context the conflict takes place in – such as the political, economic and socio-cultural context and issues, as well as the history of conflict.

Non-violence is the first article of my faith. It is also the last article of my creed.

- Mohandas Gandhi, leader of India’s freedom movement

The dynamics between actors, causes and profile – such as conflict trends, windows of opportunity and possible future scenarios.

The Do No Harm concepts of “dividers” and “connectors” provide one simple, but useful way of analysing the conflict, but may with advantage be combined with other tools to provide a richer analysis.

3.1.2 Understanding the interaction between intervention and context

The basis for understanding the interaction between intervention and context is to link the conflict analysis with the project cycle of FORUT. There are also many tools designed to achieve this. The Do No Harm approach is useful, as it first concentrates on “unpacking” the intervention itself, and then looks at how it impacts on the conflict in which it is implemented. One of the main findings of the Do No Harm project was that it is often the details of an assistance programme that determines its impact on the conflict, hence the necessity of unpacking the intervention to look at its details.

When applying conflict sensitivity it is important to do so throughout the project cycle: in planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Decisions made at all these stages have the potential to impact on the conflict. It is particularly important to design the monitoring systems in such a way that FORUT can detect changes in the context of conflict, unintended impacts (positive and negative) of the intervention on the conflict, and windows of opportunity for positive impacts on the conflict. This is only possible if the conflict sensitive approach has been successfully mainstreamed in the organisation.

3.1.3 Using the understanding to avoid negative impacts and maximise positive impacts.

The basic requirements for avoiding negative impacts and maximising positive impacts are – besides the understanding mentioned above – systems for redesigning (parts of) projects when required, creativity for coming up with improved options, flexibility, an organisational culture which allows for admitting problems/mistakes, and open and truthful dialogue on how to achieve better results.

There are fewer ready-made tools for redesigning projects, because the options for ensuring that impacts are positive rather than negative must be designed taking the specific, local circumstances into account. Thus, it is impossible to generalise about “what works”.

3.1.4 Guidelines for conflict sensitivity in FORUT:

ü For all projects, the potential for violent conflict in its context should be assessed, and if such a potential exists, the guidelines below come into effect. If not, many of the guidelines below may still prove useful.

ü Planning of all projects shall include a conflict analysis, which shall be included in the Project Document. The conflict analysis process shall be as inclusive as possible.

ü The conflict analysis shall be updated at regular intervals (at least annually), or when changes in the context requires it

ü All monitoring systems shall include mechanisms for monitoring the interaction between the project and the context of conflict

ü The Terms of Reference of all evaluations of FORUT-funded projects shall include an evaluation of the conflict sensitivity of the project.

ü All FORUT organisations and partners working in a context of (potential) violent conflict shall have in-house capacity on conflict sensitive approaches and tools

ü A section of FORUT’s annual planning and reporting formats shall be devoted to conflict sensitivity

ü All FORUT organisations and partners shall have a conflict sensitivity focal point

ü All FORUT organisations and partners shall have a Code of Conduct for their staff which promotes sensitivity in the areas of conflict, culture and gender.

ü FORUT shall endeavour to stay engaged in conflict areas as long as possible, and always seek to protect the space for development and humanitarian work.

ü FORUT shall always give safety of its staff highest priority, and the safety of expatriate and local staff is of equal importance.

3.2 Peacebuilding and reconciliation

As a development organisation FORUT is not mandated nor does it have the expertise to become involved in peacebuilding and reconciliation in a narrow sense, such as for example high-level mediation, negotiations or dialogues, DDR-processes (disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of former combatants), security system reform or truth commissions. This does not mean that FORUT cannot contribute to peacebuilding and reconciliation. It means only that the organisations must do so by building on its strengths rather than by expanding and diluting its mandate.

All war must be just the killing of strangers against whom you feel no personal animosity; strangers whom, in other circumstances, you would help if you found them in trouble, and who would help you if you needed it.

- Mark Twain, US writer

FORUT’s main approach to peacebuilding and reconciliation will therefore be “peacebuilding through development”. This does not preclude FORUT from attaching peacebuilding/reconciliation subprojects to a larger programme whenever appropriate, but it gives a general direction to the development of FORUT’s expertise and project portfolio. FORUT can for example contribute to peacebuilding by finding entry points through local development projects, to:

ü Protect poor and marginalised people (including IDPs) from the consequences of armed conflict, and support their right to safety and freedom from violence.

ü Address root causes of conflict, such as poverty and discrimination.

ü Address proximate causes of conflict by social and geographical inclusion in projects.

ü Challenge processes and actors that contribute to escalation of violen conflict.

ü Support processes and actors that prevent escalation of conflict and seek nonviolent conflict resolution

This approach to peacebuilding and reconciliation is rather close to the “positive” side of conflict sensitive programming: to exploit windows of opportunity to “do good” in addition to doing no harm.

How can peacebuilding be achieved through development? There is both theory and empirical evidence to back up the claim that this is possible, albeit of course not guaranteed. If we look at the Norwegian MFA strategic framework, they list, i.a., the following activities as potentially peacebuilding:

ü Supporting civil society, including the media

ü Reconstruction of infrastructure and important public functions

ü Social development: education and health

ü Economic development: private sector development, employment, trade and investment

ü Repatriation and reintegration of IDPs

All of these activities are well within the scope of development activities carried out by FORUT, and the challenge is – in the context of violent conflict – how the peacebuilding potential of these activities can be fully exploited. FORUT must also avoid the fallacy of believing that because these activities may contribute to peacebuilding, they will always do so. On the contrary, many peacebuilding activities have been found to be conflict insensitive, and some may even have a net negative impact on the conflict in spite of having explicit peacebuilding objectives.

Brothers, you came from our own people. You are killing your own brothers. Any human order to kill must be subordinate to the law of God, which says: ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’. No soldier is obliged to obey any order contrary to the law of God.

- Archbishop Oscar Romero, assassinated in El Salvador

Development may contribute to peacebuilding or reconciliation by chance, but it is more likely to happen if it is deliberately planned for. This is most easily done by using the results of the conflict analysis (which is carried out to achieve conflict sensitivity) to generate ideas and theories about linkages between development and peace. If, during the planning stage, we can come up with a theory of change which substantiates a claim that a particular development intervention may contribute to peacebuilding, then a peacebuilding objective (or more) may be included among the project objectives. By including it in the LFA matrix (or other planning tools), we enable inputs to be allocated, activities to be designed, and results to be monitored and evaluating also with a peacebuilding objective in mind.

There are some peacebuilding and reconciliation opportunities that cannot be planned for, because they appear during project implementation. Such windows of opportunity may in many instances provide better opportunities for peacebuilding than those created by long-term planning. It is therefore imperative that FORUT and its partners are alert and able to utilise these windows of opportunities when they appear. Predominantly, such opportunities are discovered by field staff rather than desk officers, and it is therefore crucial to have an organisational culture where ideas and opinions from the field are recognised, appreciated and acted upon by the management. Such a culture must be built on transparency, trust, free information exchange and flexibility.

Special attention should be paid to the role of women and children in relation to conflict, peace and reconciliation. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC, 1989), the Convention on Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW, 1979), The UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) and the Norwegian Government’s Action Plan for its implementation are core documents with regard to women[10] and SC Resolutions 1261 (1999) and 1314 (2000) with regard to children in armed conflict. It is essential to have a two-track approach to women and children in armed conflict: on the one hand they have special needs for protection; while on the other hand women have are underutilised as a resource in peacebuilding and reconciliation, and children have a strong sense of justice and tremendous potential to build bridges across insecurities, mistrust and fear in order to form and strengthen bonds and relationships.

3.2.1 Guidelines for peacebuilding and reconciliation in FORUT:

ü In project planning, always use the conflict analysis to see if peacebuilding objectives can be derived from development interventions

ü In project implementation, always look for windows of opportunity, and develop an organisational culture and monitoring systems that enable this

ü When appropriate, develop and implement (sub)projects that have peacebuilding or reconciliation as its primary objective, as long as it is based on FORUT’s and its partners’ areas of competence.

ü Ensure that women and children are ensured equal and full participation in all development processes and are secured access to core livelihood assets, and that their potential role in peacebuilding and reconciliation is fully utilised.

ü Endeavour to include peace and reconciliation as themes in preschool and school curriculums and activities, and promote peace and reconciliation through all relevant awareness-raising activities.

ü Ensure that the special protection needs of women and children are met in all relief and rehabilitation activities, with a special focus on avoiding sexual and gender based violence.

ü Strengthen the capacity of civil society partners in managing conflicts non-violently and constructively, e.g. through negotiations, mediation, dialogue etc.

ü Whenever possible create meeting places for people from different sides of a conflict where they can work towards a common goal to the benefit of all

ü Support pro-peace and anti-violence advocacy efforts of FORUT’s CSO/CBO partners, and help to channel their perspectives into peace processes at different levels

ü Peacebuilding and reconciliation will generally be promoted by good practices on conflict sensitivity, such as:

o Transparency, honesty and predictability

o Accountability towards end users (not only towards donors)

o Processes that include stakeholders from all sides of a conflict, and which are responsive to different views and interests

o Practices for hiring staff and selecting beneficiaries that do not (directly or indirectly) benefit some groups more than others

3.3 Practical tools and approaches

FORUT does not want to force its partners and country offices to use specific tools and approaches in their work on conflict sensitivity, peacebuilding and reconciliation. Each partner needs to choose tools that they deem useful for their organisation and their context. However, some suggestions may be useful.

For conflict sensitivity, a good starting point is the Do No Harm approach. The book by Mary B. Anderson contains a practical framework for conflict analysis and programme (re) design, and further tools are available at their website www.cdainc.com. The Conflict Sensitivity Resource Pack by International Alert et.al. contains a review of a number of other tools.

Peacebuilding tools are usually more specific with regard to what kind of peacebuilding activities one is engaged in (negotiations, reconciliation, peace education, mediation etc.). The book “Confronting War. Practical lessons for peace practitioners”, also by Mary B. Anderson offers some useful generic guidelines, while the book “Working with Conflict” by Simon Fisher et.al. contains many concrete and simple tools for conflict analysis and peacebuilding interventions. So does the CARITAS peacebuilding manual. International IDEA has developed a handbook which deals specificially with reconciliation.

All documents referred to here are listed in the reference section at the end of this document.

A draft checklist for conflict sensitivity has also been attached to this document.

4. Summary

FORUT is committed to promoting a culture of peace, addressing root causes of conflict, protecting the vulnerable from violence and exploitation, and empowering individuals and communities to resolve conflicts by peaceful means. FORUT shall build internal competence, create systems and develop an organisational culture to these ends, and to ensure that its development interventions never have a negative impact upon conflicts and that they have a positive impact whenever possible.

5. References/bibliography/recommended reading

5.1 Core reading

5.1.1 Conflict sensitivity:

Anderson, Mary B. Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace - Or War. Local Capacities for Peace Project, Boulder, London: Lynne Reinner Publishers, 1999.

5.1.2 Peacebuilding:

Anderson, Mary B.: Confronting War. Practical lessons for peace practitioners. http://www.cdainc.com/publications/rpp/confrontingwar/ConfrontingWar.pdf

Fisher, Simon, Jawed Ludin, Steve Williams, and Dekha I. Working With Conflict. Birmingham, UK: Zed Books, 2000.

Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Peacebuilding – A Development Perspective. Strategic framework. Norwegian MFA, 2004

5.1.3 Reconciliation:

International IDEA: Reconciliation after Violent Conflict. A Handbook. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Stockholm, 2003.

5.2 Additional reading:

5.2.1 Conflict sensitivity:

International Alert et.al: Conflict sensitive approaches to development, humanitarian assistance and peacebuilding. A resource pack. 2004. www.conflictsensitivity.org

5.2.2 Peacebuilding:

Boutros-Ghali, Boutros: An Agenda for Peace: Preventive Diplomacy, Peacemaking and Peace-keeping Document A/47/277 - S/241111, 17 June 1992 (New York: Department of Public Information, United Nations) 1992. http://www.un.org/Docs/SG/agpeace.html

Boutros-Ghali, Boutros: Supplement to An Agenda for Peace: Position Paper of the Secretary-General on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations Document A/50/60 - S/1995/1, 3 January 1995 (New York: Department of Public Information, United Nations) 1995. http://www.un.org/Docs/SG/agsupp.html

CARITAS: Peacebuilding. A Caritas Manual. http://www.caritas.org/Upload/P/Peacebuilding_English.pdf

Galtung, Johan. Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization. London: Sage, 1996.

Galtung, Johan, and Carl G. Jacobsen. Searching for Peace: The Road to TRANSCEND. Second Edition. London: Pluto Press, 2002.

Lederach, John Paul: Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1995.

Lederach, John Paul. The Little Book of Conflict Transformation. Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 2003.

OECD: Helping Prevent Violent Conflict. The DAC Guidelines. OECD 2001.

SIDA: How to Conduct a Conflict Analysis. Conflict sensitive Development Co-operation. SIDA, 2004.

Smith, Dan: Towards A Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding. Getting Their Act Together. Norwegian MFA, 2004.

Åkerlund, Anna: Transforming Conflicts and Building Peace. Experience and Ideas of Swedish Civil Society Organisations. SIDA, 2005.

5.2.3 Reconciliation:

CARITAS: Working for reconciliation. A Caritas handbook. http://www.caritas.org/static/pdf/eng/wkgreconc.pdf

Gloppen, Siri: Reconciliation and Democratisation – Outlining the Research Field, report commissioned by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Chr. Michelsens Institute Oct. 2001.

Lederach, John Paul: Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press) 1997.

For en extensive bibliography on numerous issues relating to conflict and peacebuilding, see http://www.peacemakers.ca/bibliography/index.html

Appendix 1: Draft checklist for conflict sensitivity

Which factors are strengthened and which are weakened by the proposed activity?
Which actors are strengthened and which are weakened by the proposed activity? How does this relate to “connectors” and “dividers” in the conflict?
How will the activity be perceived by the political actors in the conflict?
Will the intervention have any consequences for existing institutions at local and central level? (particularly in relation to legitimisation or have consequences for the effectivness of aid)
Which resources are brought into the area? What effect can this have on the conflict? What is the effect with regard to corruption, theft or embezzlement?
How is planning with regard to timing? Is there sufficient time for consultations? Is the implementation too rapid or too slow? Do the different elements come in the right order?
Which values, that may be of importance for the conflict, are communicated by the way the activity is carried out?
How does the activity have consequences for the gender dimension of the conflict, and for the role of women?
What role does the security situation play – and how is it affected by the activity?
Are the contributions of international actors co-ordinated? Is it of any importance for the conflict?

[1] As a policy paper this document focuses on overall principles and guidelines. There are many peacebuilding and conflict sensitivity tools and approaches already available to help implementing these guidelines and principles. FORUT encourages the use of existing tools and approaches instead of developing our own.

[2] International Alert et. al 2004.

[3] International Alert et. al 2004

[4] International Alert et. al 2004

[5] International Alert et. al 2004.

[6] International IDEA 2003.

[7] Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI Yearbook 2006.

[8] With “conflict area” is meant a geographic areas which has experienced, is experiencing or is likely to experience violent conflict in the near future.

[9] International IDEA 2003.

[10] From 2006 onwards, Norwegian development CSOs are specifically asked by NORAD to report on the implementation of SC Res. 1325.

E-mail this

Print this

Verdi- og strategidokument

Nyheter fra FORUT