Peace and Development

Bi­annual Report 2009 – 2010

The Working Group on Peace and Development (FriEnt) isan association of governmental organisations, church devel­opment agencies, civil society networks, and political foun­dations.

FriEnt aims to pool capacities, support networking and coo p ­eration, and contribute to conflict­sensitive developmentcooperation. FriEnt’s members are committed to workingtogether to promote a range of approaches and highlightthe potential of conflict sensitive development and peace­building to policy­makers and the public at large.

FriEnt’s members are united by their great commitment topeacebuilding and development. They vary, however, in theirsize, mandate, international partners, projects and approach­es. They aim to utilise their diverse perspectives and experi­ence as an asset for their shared productive work on peacebuilding in the context of development cooperation.

FriEnt’s membersFederal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Devel op ­ment (BMZ) | Deutsche Gesellschaft für InternationaleZusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH | Church Development Service(EED) | Friedrich­Ebert­Stiftung (FES) | Heinrich­Böll­Stiftung(hbs) | Catholic Central Agency for Development Aid /Misereor | Civil Peace Service Group (CPS) | GermanPlatform for Peaceful Conflict Management / Institute forDevelopment and Peace, University Duisburg­Essen (INEF) |Center for International Peace Operations (ZIF)

FriEnt

Imprint

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

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

frient@bmz.bund.dewww.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 therespective authors and do not necessarily represent those of theFriEnt member organizations.

Bonn, September 2011

Pictures: Cover: Deborah Benbrook; Cover: Deborah Benbrook; p. 2: ThomasKöhler/photothek; privat; p. 3: Thomas Köhler/photothek; ThomasEcke; Chris Willkomm; Thomas Ecke; p. 4: O. Lehner/EuropeanCommission; p. 5 left: Ben Barber/USAID, Photoshare; p. 5 right:Charlie Saceda; p. 6: mortsan, CC­license; p. 7: UN Photo/MartinePerret; p. 8/p. 9: European Union (3x); p. 10: UN Photo/PauloFilgueiras; 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: JochenHippler; 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 2

Editorial: FriEnt 2009/2010 – Networking, information, advice 3

Challenging Peacebuilding Paradigms

Questioning assumptions – adopting new approaches 4

Mediation and dialogue as a way out of the conflict trap in South Caucasus? 6

Elections: peace promoter or spoiler? The example of Burundi 7

International Peacebuilding Perspectives

Quo vadis EU: New impetus for peace and development? 8

UN Peace Day: International responsibility for peace and development 10

Land and Its Peace and Conflict Potential

Land: home or the basis of production? 12

Cambodia: State and civil society cooperation in the management of land conflicts 14

Indonesia: Protecting human and land rights 16

South Africa: Land restitution between justice and development 17

FriEnt’s 10th Anniversary

“There was a real sense of optimism” 18Adolf Kloke­Lesch and Jürgen Nikolai look back on FriEnt’s early days

Perspectives for linking peacebuilding and development 20Natascha Zupan considers old and new challenges

Fixing obstacles blocking a multi­stakeholder approach to peace and development 22Guest Article by Lisa Schirch on state and civil society cooperation

Sharing knowledge – creating impetus 24

FriEnt structure 25

Contents

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

2 Preface

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

FriEnt offers its members a unique networking and learningplatform. The aim is to pool expertise, promote networkingand cooperation, progress issues of relevance to peacebuild­ing and development, and make a joint contribution to con­flict­sensitive development cooperation. Whereas the much­vaunted “dialogue on an equal footing” is, sadly, no morethan an empty phrase in far too many cases, for FriEnt, it isan essential prerequisite and foundation for its existence.

Over the past 10 years, however, we have learned that thisdialogue is neither an end in itself, nor should it be seen asa guarantee of harmony. Our organisational cultures, ourtheories of change, our mandates and strategies are toodiverse for that. However, we have a shared understandingof the need to address controversial issues arising withinthe FriEnt context on the basis of trust and utilise them in apositive and productive way.

This applies to the planning of projects and programmes in countries affected by conflict, as well as to the dialogueabout sensitive topics – such as the nexus between peace,development and security. It also applies to current para­digms in peacebuilding and development, reform processeson the multilateral level, or the conflict­related risks of landinvestments. FriEnt works mainly in the background – andgenerally considers the perspectives of partner organisationsfrom the global South. This allows us to look beyond our ownhorizons and facilitates shared learning.

The FriEnt Team creates the necessary space for this process.It initiates cooperation and provides advice. Through itsunique composition – mainly comprising staff from themember organisations – the Working Group facilitates aholistic view. This is vital for a more nuanced understandingof conflict situations and dynamics and better coordinationbetween the various programmes.

In the coming years, FriEnt members will continue to givehigh priority to advocating for the strategies and potentialsof development and peacebuilding vis­à­vis German policy­makers and in the public arena. In this context, we will focuson long­term solutions, the needs of our partners and part­ner countries, and the recognition of diversity in conflictprevention and sustainable peacebuilding.

Bonn/Berlin, July 2011

Christine Toetzke, BMZ Dr. Wolfgang Heinrich, EEDChairs of the FriEnt Steering Committee

3Editorial

FriEnt 2009/2010 – Networking, information, advice

16 country round tables, 12 workshops, two internationalconferences, three public events, 20 issues of FriEnt Impulsesand Webnews, three briefing papers and three sets of docu­mentation, as well as various consultation processes andtrainings: this is the FriEnt team’s score card at the end of2009 and 2010. Underlying these bald statistics, however,are complex thematic and country­specific challenges whichFriEnt members and others must address. We hope thatthrough our activities, we have provided impetus for thefurther progress of conflict sensitive development andpeacebuilding.

We are delighted to have the opportunity, with our bi­annualreport 2009/2010, to give you some insights into our workand the activities undertaken by FriEnt members. However,the focus is just not on achievements to date; we also high­light substantive challenges and their significance for thepractical work of the various peacebuilding and developmentactors. We have therefore chosen to profile “PeacebuildingParadigms”, “International Processes” and “Land Conflicts”as three of our thematic priorities to provide the frameworkfor the report. We would particularly like to thank our col­leagues 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 theWorking Group. We once again have two political founda­tions – the Friedrich Ebert Foundation and the Heinrich BöllFoundation – among our members. The Center for Inter na ­tional Peace Operations (ZIF) also joined FriEnt, offering theWorking Group its valuable perspective on the issues ofpeacebuilding and development. As a result of these changes,we have also welcomed many new colleagues to the teamand the steering committee.

FriEnt’s anniversary in 2011 is an opportunity for us to reflecton the last 10 years of conflict sensitive development andpeacebuilding. On this basis, and together with FriEnt mem­bers, we are keen to identify current challenges and discussoptions for action by state and civil society actors. Besidesthe progress made and the areas where further work isneeded to mainstream peacebuilding in traditional areas ofdevelopment cooperation – education, health and landmanagement – 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 bi­annual report 2009/2010, we look back but we also look for ­ward, laying the foundation for further reflection within theWorking Group on future priorities and objectives for FriEnt.

The FriEnt Team wishes you an enjoyable read!

Natascha Zupan Marc BaxmannHead of the FriEnt Team Communication Officer

Questioning assumptions – adopting new approaches

4 Challenging Peacebuilding Paradigms

Democracy promotes peace. Civil society builds bridgesacross social divides. Dialogue leads to reconciliation. Butwhat happens if these peace building paradigms are chal­lenged by reality? What if elections trigger violence, or dia­logues and encounters reinforce stereotypes? In that case,as FriEnt sees it, these assumptions must be subjected tocritical reflection. This does not mean jettisoning existingassumptions altogether; rather, their viability in other politi­cal, social and cultural contexts must be tested and workingmethods adapted accordingly. Together with its members,FriEnt has therefore put two of these approaches – supportfor political transformation processes, and dialogue pro­grammes – under the microscope.

“I am because we are”

“Which changes do you expect to affect you personally ifthe party you support wins or loses the elections?” Thisquestion was addressed to young people from Germany andKenya who took part in an event on “The importance of par­liamentary elections” facilitated by FriEnt in autumn 2010.Whereas most of the young people from Germany took theview that elections would make very little difference tothem personally, the young people from Kenya remainedsilent. Even after repeated efforts to clarify the issue, theyoung Kenyans still did not understand the question. Finally,the leader of the Kenyan group spoke up: “It’s because ofthe way you’ve phrased the question. We don’t have ananswer. We don’t have any individual expectations, and theway an election result affects me personally is of no conse­quence. “I am because we are”. All that matters from theindividual’s perspective is how the election outcome affectsthe group as a whole.”

This reaction caused consternation, but it also reaffirmed afamiliar reality: for many people in African countries, it isnot the state but the ethnic group which still provides theset of reference. It is where allegiance­based relationshipsconverge and it is the membership to the ethnic groupwhich frames the expectations and the conduct of the indi­vidual in his or her role as voter, candidate or politicaloffice­holder, or as a public employee.

In recent years, however, African countries have witnessedthe growth of the intellectual middle class, whose aspira­tions centre on reforms and a modern system of governancebased on democratic principles. These reform­minded strataof society have been the focus of Western policies to pro­mote good governance and stabilise peace, based on thepremise that the decision­makers in the state’s institutionshave overcome the constraints imposed by old allegiancesand now see the reform of political structures, institutionsand legal frameworks as offering greatest leverage fordemocratisation, stability and peace.

Opportunities and Risks of Elections in AfricaInternational Workshop, May 2009

Promoting Peace Through Dialogue – Limits and PotentialsWorkshop in cooperation with the Civil Peace Service Group,October 2009

Discussions about the opportunities and risks associated withelections in Burundi, Kenya and Tanzania, February 2010

Kenya’s New Constitution – A Breakthrough for Peace andStability? FriEnt Round Table, October 2010

FriEnt Activities

However, in light of the real­world developments takingplace in some partner countries, critical reflection of theseexpectations is required. Dr Ulrich Golaszinski, Head of theEast Africa Department and Democracy Project at theFriedrich Ebert Foundation, has observed the constitutionalreform processes in Zimbabwe and Kenya and is scepticalabout the outcomes: “The difficulties in implementing “people­driven constitutions” in Zimbabwe and Kenya show that it isobviously possible to carry out sweeping political reformswithout having any effect on the underlying political con­flicts. Although the system’s structures change, the possibilitycannot be ruled out that the new powerful elites will beidentical with the old ones and operate according to the oldrules, which lack transparency.”

Which approach should be adopted in the face of this reality?Which adjustments are required, and which measures areneeded to prevent violence? These issues were addressed

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

“Changing every­day realities”

Whether in Rwanda, Bosnia, or Israel and the Palestinianterritories: civil society dialogue and encounter programmesare now an integral element of many peace processes.

and walls make any kind of meeting impossible in practicalterms, this can lead to frustration and rejection. Instead ofinitiating dialogue across divides, it may therefore be moreappropriate, in many cases, to start by working within a singlecommunity.

Whether the work takes place within a community or acrossthe divide, external actors can play an important role in bothcontexts. Nenad Vukosavljevic from the Centre for NonviolentAction in Belgrade advises external actors to remain flexible,take risks, and reflect on their own role. “External actors donot remain external for long, and anyone claiming a mediat­ing role for themselves must also consider that this couldweaken local partners who have taken on a similar role.”

5Challenging Peacebuilding Paradigms

“However, in many cases, there is no differentiation betweenthe objectives of these programmes,” said Gudrun Kramerfrom the Austria­based Institute for Integrative ConflictTransformation and Peacebuilding at a FriEnt workshop inOctober 2009. What’s more: “The aims adopted for media­tion processes with political decision­makers are not suit­able as topics for dialogue programmes at grassroots level.The aims need to be adapted, and methodologies shouldnot be transferred from one dialogue context to another. Incivil society processes, it’s about changing people’s every­day realities. It’s not about solving the conflict.”

Part of this reality is that the social environment is generallyhostile to the idea of encounter with the “other side”. Parti c ­ipants in dialogue projects must therefore be chosen care­fully and given intensive support. Detailed considerationmust also be given to the general environment. If there arevery few changes in people’s every­day lives, if checkpoints

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

6 Challenging Peacebuilding Paradigms

With the South Caucasus Round Table, established in 2008, FriEntaims to sharpen the focus on the complexity and interdependenceof the conflicts in the South Caucasus. Topics addressed to dateinclude:

The Current Situation in Georgia and Crisis Prevention Issues(April 2009)

Prospects for Non­violent Conflict Transformation in Nagorno­Karabakh (October 2009)

Peace Potentials in Georgia from the Perspective of InternallyDisplaced Persons (June 2010)

FriEnt Activities

The outbreak of war between Russia and Georgia in August2008 was profoundly traumatic for people in the region,abruptly destroying their hopes of peace and development.Today, peace work with and within the secessionist entitiesof Abkhazia and South Ossetia faces complex challenges,including the integration of internally displaced persons.

The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the regionof Nagorno­Karabakh is another long lasting and actual crisishotspot in the neighbourhood. It attracted renewed interna­tional attention as a peripheral issue during the war in Georgia,briefly awakening hopes that a peaceful solution could beachieved. However, neither the international commitmentnor the rapprochement between Armenia and Turkey pro­duced a political solution. On the contrary, the situationappears to be steadily worsening.

Both conflicts fluctuate between dialogue and deadlock –between neutrality on the status issue and demands for ter­ritorial integrity. Entrenched nationalist positions on allsides impede conflict resolution and drastically curtail civilsociety’s space for action.

“All forms of dialogue need good support”Interview with Walter Kaufmann, Head of the EasternEurope Department at the Heinrich Böll Foundation

What are the major challenges for civil society organisationsengaged in peacebuilding in the South Caucasus? The governments in Azerbaijan and Georgia in particularhave no interest in involving mediators. On the contrary,they expect civil society to support their positions – in otherwords, territorial integrity and reintegration. Any organisa­tion not wishing to pursue this course finds that its scopefor action is even further reduced.

What are the main problems affecting mediation? One of the main sources for ongoing tension is the lack ofrecognition for the conflict parties from the secessionistentities. The systematic blocking of access to the local levelis the greatest obstacle to the mediation process. The inten­tion is to isolate the regions, which is why at present fargreater weight is being placed on status issues again.

Which forms of dialogue have proved their worth?Transregional formats in venues outside the conflict regionshave been particularly useful as a way of creating distancefrom the status issues. This enables participation also fromthe secessionist entities – but only when the meetings weretransparent and public and involved an appropriate set ofactors. Proper selection of the participants is vital for thesuccess of each dialogue. Every form of dialogue needs care­ful attention and support. Strategic measures are requiredto address deadlocks. Meticulous preparation and follow­upare essential. Otherwise, in this entrenched situation, therisk of provoking a “clash” is high.

7Challenging Peacebuilding Paradigms

Elections: peace promoter or spoiler? The example of Burundi

Elections are the mechanism by which a country’s popula­tion determines who should represent them and form agovernment. Elections ease the transfer of power betweenrival parties on the basis of a structured and transparentcompetition in accordance with clearly defined rules. This isnot only how the countries of the Global North advocate forpolitical reforms in Africa it is as well the African Union whodefines the democratic agenda in this way.

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

In Burundi, for example, an election marathon from the localto the national level took place between May and September2010, with the threat of failure looming right at the outset.Following the ruling party’s victory in the local elections, theopposition responded with allegations of massive election­rigging and pulled out of the presidential elections.

Some members of the Civil Peace Service Group supportedlocal partners’ efforts, in advance of the elections, to raisethe general public’s awareness of democratic processes andinstitutions and the role of political parties. In the followinginterview, Günter Schönegg, Eirene advisor in Burundi, talksabout the elections’ significance for local communities.

As a result of the opposition boycott, only one candidatestood 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 wantthe election to take place; they had – and still have – other

priorities. Many Burundians took the view that the electionswere only taking place because this was agreed in the Arushapeace process in 2010. Not voting would have meant chal­lenging the peace process, so the election was regarded asvital for peace. Nonetheless, people were well aware thatelections could result in destabilisation and violence so theirattitude was very ambivalent. In all the elections, Burun diansvoted first and foremost for “stability”. A vote for theincumbent President Nkurunziza and his party was thus avote for “more of the same”.

Although the people of Burundi tended to regard these elec­tions as a necessary evil, could the elections probably stillcontribute to the process of democratisation by offering thepeople an opportunity to practise democratic proceedings? For Burundian society, local and municipal elections are amuch better learning ground for democracy. At this level,rural communities have opportunities for participation whichdon’t exist at the provincial or national level. Decisions takenat the local level also have direct impacts on the rural popu­lation, and the decision­making processes are transparent. Itis regrettable that the international community rarely observeselection cycles at the local level. Their significance for theestablishment of democratic processes is often underesti­mated.

As part of its priority topic of prevention, FriEnt has focused particularly on opportunities and risks associated with electionsin Africa. Round table discussions on Burundi have taken placein 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? (September2010)

FriEnt Activities

Quo vadis EU: New impetus for peace and development?

8 International Peacebuilding Perspectives

The EU Instrument of Stability as a Bridge between Security and Development – What Role for Civil Society? FriEnt/VENRO Workshop, March 2009

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

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

FriEnt Activities

Over the last two years, the European Union (EU) has set thecourse for its future engagement for peace and development.The 27 EU Member States have adopted conflict preventionas central objective of the Union’s external action under the Lisbon Treaty. Regional responsibilities are now pooledwithin the new European External Action Service, which hasits own unit dedicated to conflict prevention, peacebuildingand mediation. This creates new opportunities as well aschallenges to link European peacebuilding policy with devel­opment cooperation.

In its Programme for the Prevention of Violent Conflicts –also known as the “Gothenburg Programme” – adopted 10years ago, the EU pledged to enhance its instruments forlong­ and short­term prevention, to mainstream conflictprevention and peacebuilding within all relevant policyareas, and to address the root causes of conflict. Since then,the EU has indeed adopted and developed a number of spe­cific instruments. There are still gaps which need to befilled, however, especially as regards the linkage with devel­opment actions. These gaps are particularly apparent in theEU’s financial instruments, as well as in some of its regionalstrategies. For example, the 3rd Africa­EU Summit in late2010 generated little fresh impetus for the integration ofpeacebuilding into the Joint Africa­EU Strategy.

At the latest, the current processes for the reform of EUdevelopment policy and the negotiations on the next finan­cial framework from 2014 will signal how much of a prioritythe EU attaches to conflict prevention and peacebuilding inits external relations, and which role development coopera­tion will play in this context.

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

framework of the Peace Building Partnership establishedunder the EU’s Instrument for Stability, for example, a CivilSociety Dialogue Network (CSDN) has been set up, aimed atfacilitating structured dialogue between civil society and theEU institutions.

“We cannot avoid a stronger division of labour”

Interview with Christine Toetzke, Head of the Peace andSecurity Division at the Federal Ministry for EconomicCooperation 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 Programmeand the European Consensus on Development, but also in theEuropean Security Strategy, of course. EU decisions relatingto specific conflicts or fragile states also provide an importantbasis, especially for the coordination of the EU’s position ininternational organisations. This is the framework withinwhich German development cooperation operates as well.

The EU has numerous instruments at its disposal which arenot available to the Member States on an individual basisbut to which we contribute. One example is the Instrumentfor Stability. The EU also provides a very substantial amountof funding and implements programmes in conflict affectedcountries, making it one of the major donors, so we have toharmonise our own national actions with the EU. The EU alsoprovides a forum for coordination with other EU MemberStates.

The European Consensus on Development defines conflictprevention and fragile states as core areas of EU developmentpolicy. 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 itscredibility in many countries. The EU has some form of rep­resentation in almost every country, including many fragilestates and conflict countries which have been “forgotten

peace and security architecture. This is an area where theEU can draw on its own wealth of experience, and it shouldcontinue to be expanded, not only in Africa. Early warningand the development of civil conflict prevention capacitiesare just two examples.

In your view, do the new structures offer opportunities formore mainstreaming of peacebuilding in European develop­ment policy? My hope is that with the new External Action Service, it willgenuinely be possible to make better use of synergies andcoordinate actions more effectively. There is still a consider­able lack of clarity at present, however. A separate issue, inmy view, is the integration of conflict sensitivity and peace­building in European development cooperation. This, on theother hand, requires the consistent application and develop­ment of existing directives and the drafting of new guidelines.

Is further “Europeanisation” a sensible approach, in yourview, or should the EU focus on improving the coordinationbetween national strategies? I believe that a twin­pronged approach is appropriate.However, full communitisation of conflict prevention andpeacebuilding would not seem to be a realistic or sensibleoption. The Member States will not relinquish control of thisimportant policy field.

On the other hand, it would be helpful in many cases ifstrategic guidelines were established at EU level. However,this would require the adoption of a binding reference doc­ument at high level, which should contain quantifiableimplementation measures and some kind of division oflabour. I believe that in the field of conflict prevention andpeacebuilding, as elsewhere, we cannot avoid a strongerdivision of labour. So it is especially regrettable that work onthe proposed EU Action Plan for Situations of Conflict andFragility has been shelved for almost two years now.

9International Peacebuilding Perspectives

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

Another advantage is that the EU can combine many of theinstruments in its toolbox, including the Development Co­ope ­ration Instrument, the Instrument for Humanitarian Assis ­tance, the European Instrument for Democracy and HumanRights, and the Instrument for Stability. But there is alsoscope for the EU to combine these Community instrumentswith those available under the Common Foreign and SecurityPolicy in order to achieve greater effectiveness. There isroom for improvement, however, and I am placing my hopesin the new External Action Service here.

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

10 International Peacebuilding Perspectives

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

Reconciliation and responsibility

Where are the linkages – and where are the gaps – bet weenGermany’s policy of remembrance and dealing with thepast and current peace policy? This question was the sub­ject of the panel discussion with Professor Jost Düfflerfrom the University of Cologne, Marcus Lenzen, a conflictadvisor to the UK’s Department for International Develop ­ment (DFID), and Professor Christian Schwarz­Schilling,former High Representative and European Union SpecialRepresentative for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The discussionwas chaired by Dr Corinna Hauswedell.

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

Peace and development are the two core tasks of theUnited Nations (UN). That being the case, the UN is in a par­ticularly good position to link up these two thematic areas –for despite a sobering balance sheet, the UN is still the mainplayer in peacekeeping and peacebuilding, according toProfessor Tobias Debiel, Director of the Institute for Devel ­opment and Peace (INEF) and a member of the Board of theGerman Platform for Peaceful Conflict Management: “Wehave very few alternatives. Regional organisations – forexample in sub­Saharan Africa – would be unable to fill thegap. So our aim must be to continue to develop and reformthe UN’s peace operations.”

But as Debiel points out, it is essential to address the prob­lems that have been identified. “There are virtually no cri ­teria in place that provide the basis for decision­making onthe ending of interventions or define the conditions andtimescales for this process. And yet over time, an interna­tional presence may well become part of the problem.”Sustainable solutions require long­term perspectives: “State ­building takes place at the interface between security anddevelopment – but it still relies far too heavily on blueprintswhich fail to take adequate account of local conditions,socio­economic structures and cultural values.”

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

Every year, Bonn­based development and peace organisationscelebrate the United Nations’ International Day of Peace. Theytake the UN Peace Day as an opportunity to turn the spotlighton peace issues and activities and promote the public debate.For the last three years, FriEnt and two of its member organisa­tions, the Church Development Service (EED) and the FriedrichEbert Foundation, have hosted a public event as their contribu­tion to the UN Peace Day in Bonn. More than 100 guests tookpart in the panel discussions in both 2009 and 2010.

UN Peace Day: International responsibility for peaceand development

FriEnt Activities

other words, migration policy, home affairs and economicpolicy are also integral to a coherent and responsibleapproach. In the UN context, long­term strategies must begiven priority.

The participants agreed that sectors such as education shouldalso be regarded as an element of pro­active and effectivepeace policy. In this respect, however, many policies fallshort of what is required. This is a lesson which should havebeen learned from the German experience. Genuine stepstowards reconciliation can only ever be taken by the per­sons themselves, but the international community and non­governmental organisations can support them and facilitatethe process.

The Millennium Development Goals and peace

How can the United Nations’ endeavours in the field of peaceand development be structured in such a way that they aremutually reinforcing? We invited Dr Flavia Pansieri, ExecutiveCoordinator of the United Nations Volunteers (UNV) pro­gramme, and Emeritus Professor Franz Nuscheler from theUniversity of Duisburg­Essen to discuss this and other ques­tions. 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 Representativeto the United Nations, in a video message. As the Chair ofthe UN Peacebuilding Commission, he underlined that con­flict prevention and peacebuilding are key instruments forachieving the Millennium Development Goals.

According to Franz Nuscheler, the Millennium DevelopmentGoals lack a relevant political dimension; he therefore pro­posed that MDG 8 be extended to include the attainment ofpeace. The alternative, he said, is to adopt an MDG 9 whichplaces greater emphasis on the stabilisation of peace andstate institutions.

Flavia Pansieri emphasised that particular consideration shouldbe given to state­society­relations in post­conflict settings,in parallel to the various practical, political and technicalissues of relevance to institution­building. This relationshipof trust – which is generally disrupted, if not destroyed, duringconflict – must be re­established on a new basis. Civil societyhas an important role to play in this context, said Pansieri.However, it is not only the individual state which relies onthe trust of its citizens; for the United Nations too, especiallyin its peace operations, a trustful relationship with local com ­munities plays a central role in making a sustainable contri­bution to peace.

11International Peacebuilding Perspectives

12 Land and Its Peace and Conflict Potential

Land: home or the basis of production?

From his well­guarded villa on the outskirts of his hometown, Mr Wambu manages his modern cattle farm, locatedin a neighbouring village. The influential businessman owns3000 hectares of land, acquired from the community on thebasis 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 herdsmenhave to travel long distances in order to circumvent the landowned by Mr Wambu and the new Chinese tea plantations.

However, some of the young people have been given jobson the new cattle farm, and the community receives manurefor their vegetable gardens, based on an arrangement madeby the chief and the men of the village. The women’s viewson the matter are not known.

Mr Wambu is proud of his project. He is planning a furtherexpansion, perhaps with a view to setting up a meat­pro­cessing factory in future. What is certain is that he intendsto increase his land holdings as he needs more grazing areasfor his growing herd.

Land as a conflict issue

Stories like this one, from Cameroon, are familiar all overthe world. The economic value is just one dimension of thesignifi cance of land. The socio­cultural, religious and spiritu­al dimensions are particularly important: in many Africanlegends, the land where a person is born is compared withan umbilical cord – it creates an unbreakable bond through­out life. In many myths, the land is seen as a channel throughwhich it is possible to contact the ancestors.

For the majority of poor people in developing countries,land is essential for survival. If their land is taken away, theirlivelihoods are at risk. This means that disputes over landare often a major cause of conflict. For people in thesecountries, clarity on access to land, land rights and forms ofuse is extremely important. However, so too are structuraland power­political issues arising in relation to land as aresource, 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 globalcrises such as the food crisis and climate change. The world’sgrowing population, urbanisation, industrialization andincreasing demand for land – also from foreign investors –to build infrastructure and economic zones are factorswhich are making land an increasingly scarce resource.

FriEnt focuses on the linkages between various areas of develop­ment cooperation, primarily in the field of rural development, and the conflict context, and identifies the potential for conflictprevention and crisis management. Topics addressed at theevents 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 ResourceManagement (September 2010)

FriEnt Activities

13Land and Its Peace and Conflict Potential

Refugees and internally displaced persons need new settle­ment areas, and therefore also land, to sustain their liveli­hoods. Regional mobility is increasing at the same time:people are leaving their home regions in search of betterconditions of life and a better environment. One billion peo­ple worldwide, according to the UN, are migrants, including740 million people who have been displaced on their owncontinent. There is a massive demand for land in both ruraland urban areas. The widely divergent interests and compe­tition for access to land are increasing, intensifying the con­flict potential of land and water resources.

Utilising peace potentials

Rural regions are therefore areas where conflicts frequentlyoccur. While some of these conflicts simmer beneath thesurface, 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 achiev­ing a peaceful solution to land conflicts?Traditional authorities are deeply rooted in the local andcultural context and know what is needed to identify solu­tions to land conflicts. Their judgments enjoy a high level ofacceptance among the parties concerned. For that reason,the traditional systems have gained importance again inmany contexts. There has been a dramatic change in exter­nal perceptions of these systems in recent years as well.

Which opportunities and risks are associated with theselegal systems? These institutions have legitimacy at local level and areembedded in the local culture, and this is essential for sus­tainable conflict resolution. Traditional laws have majoradvantages compared with state legal systems in this respect,also because of their flexibility and adaptability. One majorrisk is the susceptibility of the public courts to corruption,however – and this is increasingly affecting traditional

authorities as well. In Somaliland, for example, some of thepowerful and lucrative positions are bought and sold, whichmeans that they lack any traditional legitimacy. It is almostimpossible to achieve sustainable solutions to conflicts withthese authorities.

Which challenges arise, as a result, for governmental andcivil society actors?It is not easy to identify the “right” local institutions anddetermine how their capacities can be developed in the mosteffective and sustainable way. What’s more, traditionalinstitutions do not make their decisions on the basis of ournormative principles. Patient cooperation with traditionalauthorities, but also with women’s groups and public institu ­tions at the same time, is therefore especially important inorder to bring about long­term change and create new options.Civil society actors have a key role to play in this context.

quality of life. Land and water resources are always at theheart of this process. The correlations between the peacefulmanagement of existing land conflicts and the prospects forsustainable and effective development are self­evident.

Traditional authorities to guarantee thepeaceful resolution of land conflicts?

Governance structures play a key role in the management ofland. In this context, it is often the traditional conflict reso­lution mechanisms which are the only properly functioningstructures and are therefore used to regulate land issues,especially in remote areas, which attract little interest fromcentral government. But even here, vested interests andlegal vacuums can create conflicts. Jan Stockbrügger, up toFebruary 2011 researcher at the Institute for Developmentand Peace (INEF), has studied this issue.

Cambodia: State and civil society cooperation in the management of land conflicts

14 Land and Its Peace and Conflict Potential

Cambodia is engaged in a lengthy process of transition outof the post­conflict phase towards modern democracy.However, there are still many obstacles to overcome. Theyinclude, not least, the process of reckoning with the pastand the legacy of the brutal Khmer Rouge regime, creatingbetter educational opportunities, and developing the coun­try’s infrastructure. The vast majority of Cambodians dependon agriculture to support their livelihoods, and there arevery few alternatives. Access to land is therefore vitallyimportant. Legal vacuums and a growing number of cases ofexpropriation (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 ProjectLand Management, Eschborn, and Jutta Werdes, ProgrammeOfficer for Cambodia and The Philippines at the ChurchDevelopment Service (EED), Bonn, describe the significanceof land issues and conflicts in their work.

Which types of land conflict play a role in Cambodia?Vera Köppen: The Cambodian government declared thestrengthening the rural economy through land reforms as oneof its priorities. This process is supported through Germany’sbilateral development cooperation with Cambodia. Our proj­ect focuses especially on land registration and assignment ofland titles, for in Cambodia, land conflicts often arise as aresult of conflicting claims from various user groups based oninformal rights. In most cases, no account is taken of indige­nous rights, and this creates further conflict potential. Thereare also frequent inconsistencies between traditio nal and for­mal rights in relation to the issue of legal access to land.Conflicts are also caused by the expulsion of specific groupsof land users by investors. The asymmetrical power relationsbetween these stakeholders, and hence their unequal scopeto influence decision­making, are especially problematical inthis context.

Jutta Werdes: Almost all our partners have to deal with landconflicts at both the local and the national level. Land grab­bing is a particular problem: it is being carried out on a widescale by international companies or by local elites, politiciansand the military, who see land as a lucrative way of enrichingthemselves. However, land conflicts not only arise in ruralareas, where farmers are being expelled in order to free upland for mining projects, rubber plantations or other pro­duction sites. They also occur in urban settings, where peopleare being expelled to make way for construction projects.Some of these people are resettled elsewhere, but othersare not. At present, around half a million Cambodians areliving with the threat of expulsion.

What are the implications for the work of state and civilsociety organisations?Vera Köppen: Governments and their organisations mustbring influence to bear at all levels – at national, district andlocal level. It is important, in this context, to plan measuresin accordance with the “do no harm” principle and assesstheir unintended consequences. This applies especially toconflicts which are not immediately visible. Generally speak­ing, it is the intergovernmental negotiations which mark outthe framework for what is feasible in official developmentassistance. German development cooperation in Cambodiahas focused for some time on the systematic registration ofland in rural areas, but it has also provided support for thedevelopment and implementation of new legislation, whichnaturally has a bearing on the situation in urban areas aswell: after all, the legal frameworks do not just apply torural regions. However, in Cambodia, areas affected by landconflicts are initially removed from the land registrationprocess. This creates a dilemma, as official developmentassistance cannot compass the Cambodian government. Thechallenge is to act within the agreed framework while work­

ing for change within this framework and through a processof negotiation.

Jutta Werdes: The legal vacuum poses a major challenge.Although legislation exists, there are major deficits in termsof compliance. Grassroots organisations are resisting whatthey regard as illegal land grabbing. Their members arebeing arrested and the groups themselves are criminalised.The Cambodian government forces are clamping down on amassive scale. Many civil society groups are acting as advo­cates for the grassroots organisations and are supporting

What role does cooperation between state and civil societyactors have to play in the peaceful resolution of land con­flicts?Vera Köppen: It is important to identify the different roles of state and civil society actors and develop complementaryapproaches on this basis. Official development assistancehas a particularly important mediating role to play. Issueswhich do not form part of the intergovernmental negotiationsmust be taken up by civil society, which must consistentlyemphasise the scope for political solutions to these problems.A key challenge is to remind the Cambodian government

their campaigns. Others are seeking dialogue with the government. A new and restrictive NGO law has been intro­duced which massively curtails the scope for civil societyengagement. Here too, NGO networks and grassrootsorganisations have protested and have attempted to nego ­tiate at regional level in order to bring about changes to thelaw. Besides the lack of access to justice, the legacy of thepast is also a problem in Cambodia, as most farmers werenot granted land titles during the land distribution at theend of the Pol Pot regime. Faced with a powerful coalitionof politicians, the military and international finance, theyhave no proof that they are the lawful owners of the land.What’s more, there is no sign of any social responsibility onthe part of the investors.

15Land and Its Peace and Conflict Potential

of the commitments that it has undertaken voluntarily inthe international arena and demand that it takes action tofulfil them.

Jutta Werdes: It is essential for the Cambodian stakeholdersto work together, with a particular focus on ensuring thatthe dialogue continues. It is also important to create oppor­tunities for documentation. Civil society must keep thistopic in the spotlight so that the Cambodian governmentcomes under further pressure and is forced to take action.International networking, advocacy and lobbying by interna­tional actors vis­à­vis their own governments will focusattention at the international level. At the same time, thedirect approach to the private sector must continue.

16 Land and Its Peace and Conflict Potential

Indonesia: Protecting human and land rights

Despite comprehensive democratisation processes, the endingof violent conflicts and good economic growth in resource­rich Indonesia, it has not yet been possible to reduce thecountry’s massive social inequalities. Much of the populationlives below the poverty line. Furthermore, in rural regions,many people are increasingly affected by land grabbing tomake way for palm oil plantations, driven by rising globaldemand for biofuels. In this field of tension between globalchange and competing local interests, conflicts over resour ces,land use and security of land tenure are intensifying. This isaccompanied by a rise in human rights abuses. In the inter­view below, Henry Schuermann, desk officer for Indo nesiaat Misereor, talks about the significance of land as a causefor conflict and the relevance of human rights for sustainableand peaceful development.

Are tensions over land in Indonesia increasing? Yes, definitely! Issues relating to natural resources, land useand security of tenure are arising more and more frequentlyin our cooperation with partners in Indonesia. People arebeing expelled as a result of land grabbing by the governmentor corporations – not only in the provinces and rural areasbut also in the cities. The palm oil plantations in Papua arean obvious example. The situation is exacerbated by a lackof capacities in the relevant authorities, corruption, andinterest­led, clientelist policies.

From a human rights perspective, which factors must begiven particular consideration in conflict transformation?Mining or large­scale agricultural projects only bring lastingprosperity to a small minority of local people. By contrast,the majority are affected by ruthless overexploitation ofresources, an accelerated process of internal migration andtherefore also competition for jobs, and expulsion. Thepotential to generate impetus for sustainable peace and

development is being wasted because investment is not cre­ating jobs. Indigenous communities are particularly affectedby the loss of their land, both as a source of food and incomeand as a cultural space. Infrastructural development intensi­fies social tensions if immigrants benefit from this processmore than the local population. Cultural values play an impor­tant role in conflict transformation and in achieving a balanceof interests at local level.

What are the key challenges for civil society actors?Factors which are of particular relevance to land issues arethe prevailing legal vacuums and intimidation by the securityforces. A knowledge of local conditions is therefore essen­tial, as is an established relationship of trust with local part­ners. This is also the only way to enable potential threatsand risks in sensitive areas such as social justice and humanrights to be addressed openly. Unfortunately, the Indone siangovernment often does not fulfil its protective function toan adequate extent, and there is a lack of political will toimplement existing legislation. Civil society actors thereforehave 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 theirSignificance for Peace and Development (April 2010)

Potential of the EU­Indonesia Human Rights Dialogue for Peaceand Development (October 2010)

17Land and Its Peace and Conflict Potential

South Africa: Land restitution between justice and development

A pivotal aspect of the apartheid regime in South Africa wasits racist system of land distribution. This system forced themajority African population onto just 13 per cent of thecountry’s land. This made it impossible to live off the landand ensured that they would become a captive labour pool,according to Nahla Valji from the Centre for the Study of Vio ­l ence and Reconciliation (CSVR), South Africa, speaking at aninternational conference hosted by FriEnt in January 2010.In the following interview, she explains how land is there­fore central to the South African reconciliation and transfor­mation process and must be embedded in a comprehensivestrategy 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 onstructural inequalities, but this does not mean that no effortwas made to address the land issue: the 1996 constitutionestablished rights of access to land and land tenure. Landrestitution and reform were dealt with by dedicated institu­tions. In some cases, land restitution ceremonies were heldwhich recognised the injustice that had occurred and weremeant to be a sign of reconciliation. And yet the situation ofthose who were disadvantaged under the apartheid systemhas improved for very few. In many cases restitution has beenin the form of money, which has then be spent on immediateneeds. In some cases, the land which was handed back wassold on – but the profits were not invested sustainably.

How should land redistribution and restitution be integratedinto the further development agenda?Land reform should not only be implemented in order toguarantee basic rights or make good past injustice. It mustalso establish the basis for sustainable rural development.Capacity building, infrastructural measures and community

development must therefore form part of a rural developmentstrategy which links reparation with development and whoselong­term aim is to dismantle structural inequalities andcontribute 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 isworsened in contexts of violence and in post­conflict settings.Land restitution must be combined with land tenure reformsthat are based on gender justice and safeguard women’saccess to land. So it is important that the support measuresalso have an explicit gender focus if we want to compensatefor discrimination, inequality and past injustice.

What are your recommendations to organisations operatingat the interface between land, transitional justice and development cooperation?Land restitution can only be effective if it is embedded in acomprehensive development agenda. It must also takeaccount of gender issues, for otherwise, we risk neglecting alarge element of the population and key aspects of theprocess. In this context, a wide range of actors have specificroles that they can play. I see this as an opportunity forFriEnt members.

At the international conference “New Horizons. LinkingDevelopment Cooperation and Transitional Justice forSustainable Peace” on 27­28 January 2010, FriEnt and its mem­bers identified linkages between transitional justice, develop­ment cooperation and peacebuilding. The conference also host­ed the workshop “Towards Deeper­rooted Justice: AddressingLand Issues in Post­Conflict Societies”.

FriEnt Activities

“There was a real sense of optimism”

18 FriEnt’s 10th Anniversary

For the last 10 years, FriEnt has promoted dialogue betweenstate and civil society, initiated cooperation and supportedcapacity building among its members. In the following inter­view, two of FriEnt’s founders – Adolf Kloke­Lesch, formerHead of the Peacebuilding and Crisis Prevention Division atthe Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Devel op ­ ment (BMZ), and Jürgen Nikolai, former Head of the MiddleEast and Africa Department at Misereor – look back on theWorking Group’s early days.

How did the idea of setting up FriEnt come about?Adolf Kloke­Lesch: The topics of conflict prevention andpeace building were still very new to the Ministry in the late1990s – and we started small. One of the main starting pointswas a cross­sectoral evaluation of German developmentcooperation carried out in 1997 in a number of conflict coun ­tries, including Sri Lanka, Rwanda and El Salvador. In mydivision at the BMZ, there was less than half a post availableto deal with this new task. Other organisations were similar­ly under­resourced. At the same time, there was a real senseof optimism and a desire to work together to bring aboutchange. 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 weretaking place between church development agencies and theBMZ. It was in this context that Mr Kloke­Lesch raised thequestion: “What about peace? How can we work together onthis issue?” The wars in Rwanda and the former Yugo sla viahad 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 ideaof joining forces with the BMZ and GTZ was new.

What were your expectations of the Working Group?Jürgen Nikolai: Our model was “ES 31”, a working group onpoverty reduction established by the BMZ, governmentalaid agencies, church­based organisations, and NGOs. Thisdirect collaboration was intended to stimulate change. Wefelt it was important to work together on the basis of part­nership, without any dominance by the BMZ. And the issueof reflecting our own responsibility for conflicts, as it were –was very close to our hearts. Moreover, FriEnt offered theopportunity for us as a non­governmental organisation togain more of a hearing with the BMZ. There was also a greatdeal of curiosity: we wanted to utilise the other FriEnt mem­bers’ expertise, engage in international networking and con­duct a dialogue with other ministries.

Adolf Kloke­Lesch: The cooperation with specific individualsfrom the various organisations really was important. I felt itwas essential to embed these topics more firmly in the sys­tem and make the importance of development­orientedpeace work visible. To do that, we needed a “critical mass”– a team which was adequately resourced and had theexpertise to work with other institutions. This also allowedus to avoid any duplication of work. Creating a process ofmutual 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, fortheir part, had some doubts about the newly establishedCivil 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 waslikely to be beneficial, and highlight the diversity of conflictsensitive development and peacebuilding.

19FriEnt’s 10th Anniversary

What were the initial stumbling blocks?Adolf Kloke­Lesch: There weren’t any major stumbling blocks,although in the Ministry, people wondered what FriEnt wasmeant to achieve. The political commitment was importanthere. Within civil society, there was a tangible concern aboutthe possible dominance of the BMZ and a fear of coordina­tion. The Working Group could only evolve if we succeededin building trust and creating a win­win situ ation. Thatmeant setting up a self­coordinated, non­hierarchical teamwhose members work both for FriEnt and their own organi­sation. From my personal perspective, the Working Group –and the steering committee – was a very important discus­sion space, where it was possible to explore and progresstopics and issues which could only be addres sed on a jointbasis. That, in my view, is where FriEnt adds value.

Jürgen Nikolai: As far as peace issues were concerned, wehad to be persuasive in the early days. Nonetheless, myorganisation was generally very receptive to the idea of set­ting up the Working Group. All the stakeholders wereaware, too, that there were rivalries and that sensitivitieshad to be respected on all sides. Not least, this respectensured that the FriEnt team did not just become a “BMZteam”. We always dealt very constructively with differencesof opinion among the FriEnt founder members. There was areal sense of team spirit, and that undoubtedly contributedto FriEnt’s success.

2001: Founding of FriEnt by BMZ, GTZ, FES, EED, KZE/Misereor,Civil Peace Service Group and German Platform for PeacefulConflict Management /INEF | Formation of the steering com­mittee | Initial deployments of staff to set up the FriEnt team

2002: Adoption of initial thematic priorities: “Economies ofViolence”, “Informal Networks”, and “Religion and Conflicts”| FriEnt Impulses and website launched | First public eventdiscusses new approaches for joint peacebuilding strategies

2003: Publication of FriEnt’s first Methodological Guide:Network and Actor Analysis | Friedrich Naumann Foundationjoins FriEnt | Workshop: What makes successful strategicpartnerships in peacebuilding? | Nepal and Middle EastRound 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 peace­and conflict­sensitive planning and evaluation methods

2006: Development and security, as well as spoilers, areadopted as further priority topics | Sudan/Chad included inportfolio | External evaluation recommends a broaderengagement in international processes

2007: Heinrich Böll Foundation joins FriEnt | FriEnt preparestwo workshops and four papers on peace and justice for aninternational conference in Nuremberg | International net­working is intensified during the German EU Council Presi ­dency | FriEnt hosts a panel discussion as part of the interna­tional celebrations of UN Peace Day for the first time |Conflict analysis on Chad

2008: Strategic Plan for Phase III envisages a stronger politicalrole | FriEnt works on the EU and peacebuilding, land conflictsand the South Caucasus region | Workshop on challenges forconflict­sensitive development cooperation in the context ofthe Paris Declaration | Kenya after the post­election violence| Study on strategic approaches to peacebuilding in Lebanonpublished | FriEnt supports exchange of experiences amongcivil peace service experts working in the Great Lakes region

2009: International workshop discusses opportunities and risksassociated with elections in Africa | New publication “Reports2007­2008” sets new communication priorities | IndonesiaRound Table established | Problems associated with privatesecurity companies raised as an issue | Peace building para­digms critiqued

2010: Two­day international conference on transitional justiceand development | Podcast and interviews about the confer­ence | Discussion sessions in Burundi, Kenya and Tanzaniaabout 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 highlights: an overviewJürgen Nikolai is formerHead of the Middle Eastand Africa Departmentat Misereor

Adolf Kloke­Lesch is Member of the GIZManagement Board

Perspectives for linking peacebuilding and development

20 FriEnt’s 10th Anniversary

ment actors are focused on the Millennium DevelopmentGoals and the Aid Effectiveness Agenda, but rarely discusspeace and “do no harm”. A small minority is engaged in dia­logue with foreign and security policy­makers about fragility,governance, security sector and judicial reform, but theyrarely touch on the linkage between health, education orrural development and peacebuilding in their dialogue withother development actors.

Parallel discourses and demarcations between sectors andpolicy areas are by no means uncommon. There is no doubtthat this is due, not least, to limited capacities, but it is alsoa question of priorities. The debates about Afghanistan,whole­of­government strategies and broader security haveabsorbed so many resources at governmental and civil socie ­ty level that very little room was left for thinking aboutsolidifying the somewhat vague notion of “structural conflictprevention” and sector­specific mainstreaming. If it is assumed,however, that inequitable access to economic or naturalresources, political participation or education is often thecause of violent conflict, it is clear that “classic” developmentpolicy sectors offer great potential for preventive or peace­building activities based on appropriate peace­ and conflict­sensitive planning.

Actors engaged in peacebuilding and development must infuture expand and clarify the discourse and practice in twodirections: on the one hand, it is important to resume theinternal dialogue and, together with colleagues, expand thepotentials into practical action, and on the other, they mustcontinue the interdisciplinary dialogue on peace and devel­opment that spans numerous policy fields. The crucial ques­tion, in this context, is whether this external dialogue willfocus on “citizen security, justice and jobs”, with develop­ment­oriented peace work being closely associated with

There’s no doubt that a great deal has happened since con­flict prevention and peacebuilding began to attract moreinterest in the development discourse some 10 years ago.The founders of FriEnt – and many others – have achieved anumber of successes: they have established structures, deve l ­oped new tools and methods and mainstreamed peace­building in development policy.

This year’s World Development Report: Conflict, Security, andDevelopment bears witness to this progress. It summariseskey findings from research and practice. It also attests to atrend which has become increasingly evident over recentyears: the ever­closer linkage between foreign, security anddevelopment policy. It is already apparent that with its tren ch ­ant demand for more “citizen security, justice and jobs”, thereport is likely to become the new star in the security anddevelopment debate.

Reunifying discourse and practice

And yet it is obvious to anyone working at the interfacebetween peace and development that there are also weak­nesses in the report – and in the debates, conducted overrecent years, about the options for action by developmentactors. For despite a growing awareness of the complexityof crisis and post­conflict situations, despite the broad under ­standing of “human security” in the development policycontext, and despite the efforts to address the “structuralcauses” of violent conflict, there has been a narrowing andoutward 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 outwardshift”? In essence, it means that the majority of develop­

Remaining critical and innovative

Since the mid 1990s, development cooperation has focusedon two main aspects. Alongside “structural conflict preven­tion”, it has been – and is still – about developing the capac­ities of institutions and mechanisms which facilitate non­vio­lent conflict resolution. Democracy­building, human rightsprotection and reconciliation are now firmly established indevelopment cooperation.

An equally well­established but less obvious space is occu­pied by the theories of change associated with theseapproaches: reconciliation through dialogue, a liberal demo­cratic model, the rule of law, civil society as a bridge­builder

or driver of democratic reform processes, all­partiality andmediation – all these pillars of sustainable peacebuilding arebased, not least, on our own experiences of peaceful trans­formation after the Second World War.

But despite the warnings about blueprints, and althoughcontext­specific strategy development is regarded as havingcentral importance, the majority of external actors resort totried and tested approaches, often as a result of their ownself­imposed time pressure. These approaches include truthcommissions and tribunals, for example.

But surely, people’s concepts of justice and truth­findingmay well vary in the highly disparate contexts of Cambodia,the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Colombia. Andwhich steps must be taken by civil society in order to act asa bridge­builder in a deeply divided, hierarchically structuredsociety? Does dialogue genuinely lead to reconciliation?Doesn’t it sometimes deepen the rifts between sections of

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

If conflict sensitive development and peacebuilding are toremain credible in future and support reform processes on asustainable 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.

21FriEnt’s 10th Anniversary

judicial and security sector reform and quick impact eco­nomic measures in future, or whether a more comprehen­sive understanding of justice and security can be estab­lished.

Author:Natascha Zupan is Head of the FriEntTeam.

Fixing obstacles blocking a multi­stakeholder approachto peace and development

22 FriEnt’s 10th Anniversary

Fostering peace and development in conflict­affected regionsrequires a citizen oriented state working in partnership withan active civil society. The slow progress toward both peaceand sustainable development is due in part toward conflict­ing and uncoordinated approaches between these diversestakeholders. While some governments are eager to link withnongovernmental groups in a “whole of society” or “com­prehensive approach,” many civil society organizations aroundthe world challenge this approach, calling for more separa­tion between government and civil society. They fear thatshort­term imperatives and are hijacking funds needed for along­term approach to sustainable peace and development.

Moving toward a comprehensive approach requires firstdiagnosing the key issues and obstacles to stakeholder coor­dination. Current obstacles include unbalanced approachesto statebuilding, faulty conceptions of civil society, and fun­damental disagreements about the overall mission or goal.

Conceptions of Statebuilding

The tasks of fostering governance, development and peaceare sometimes referred to as “statebuilding.” The interna­tional community’s statebuilding efforts overwhelminglyfocus on building state structures and capacities while oftendoing 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 goodgovernance, development and peace.

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

ruption and ineffective services. State building exercises inIraq and Afghanistan suffer from this distorted strategy thatfundamentally misunderstands and underestimates the roleof 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 partnershipwith the state to carry out important public services, andhold the state accountable for its responsibilities to citizensand transparent governance. An active local civil society atthe national and community levels is an indicator of a func­tioning and democratic state. Just recently this has beenrecognized by the OECD in their Statebuilding Guidance. Buthistorically, some government manuals rather providedguidance on how to “pacify” civil society.

More recently, some refer to civil society as “force multipli­ers” or “project implementers.” This conception treats civilsociety as government contractors or agents. Too many gov­ernments still actively exclude civil society from assessments,planning, and policymaking related to governance, develop­ment and peace. Civil society organization adamantly con­test being called “force multipliers,” asserting that it makesit impossible for civil society to play an independent role inproviding humanitarian assistance to all sides in a conflict ora role in challenging government policy or monitoring gov­ernment corruption.

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

ernance and durable peace when there is adequate civilsociety space. On this basis it will be possible to bring differ­ent entry points and knowledge together and to develop areal comprehensive approach.

Stability for Whom and What Purpose?

A third challenge to state–civil society coordination is con­flicting definitions of terms and missions. For example, in theearly days of the popular uprising in Egypt, Western govern­ments called for “stability” even though Egyptian citizenswere clearly calling for “change.” The discourse of stabilityrequires democratic accountability; a questioning of “stabili­ty for whom and for what purpose?” Instead, civil societyasks for a more principled approach supporting movementsfor regime change and genuine democracy.

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

with the human security of local people. Not heeding localcitizen’s calls for change undermines the legitimacy of the inter ­national communities’ stated interests in supporting democra cyand freedom. Governments cannot maintain their own legiti­macy if they support these values only when the values areconvenient to their short term political or economic interests.

Shared Understanding and Inclusive PlanningRequired

Creating a truly multi­stakeholder approach requires severalkey steps:1. Recognize the historic tensions between state and civil

society definitions of peace. Given past experiences, civilsociety will question government motives to work forpeace without a transparent discussion of the state’sother interests and how these either support or under­mine human security.

2. Develop more rigorous criteria for assessing civil socie ty’sconsent for international interventions. Fostering demo ­cracy requires international interveners to practice whatthey preach by listening more closely to local civil societyleaders.

3. Aim to develop shared assessments or understanding ofdriving factors and shared missions or purpose ratherthan seeking ‘whole of society’ joint action without civilsociety input at earlier planning phases.

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

23FriEnt’s 10th Anniversary

Author:Professor Lisa Schirch is Director of 3P HumanSecurity: Partners for Peacebuilding Policy (for­merly 3D Security Initiative) and ResearchProfessor, Center for Justice & Peacebuilding atthe Eastern Mennonite University.

24 Sharing knowledge

Publications

Frieden stiften weltweit ­ Millenniumsziele und Frieden als Kernaufgaben der Vereinten Nationen Dokumentation der Podiumsdiskussion zum InternationalenFriedenstag 2010 FriEnt, EED, FES | 2010

Die EU und Afrika – Potentiale für entwicklungspolitischeFriedensarbeit 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 InternationalenFriedenstag 2009FriEnt, 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 SocietyShur Conference | Natascha Zupan, Sylvia Servaes | FriEnt |2009

for one of the main aims of the 10th anniversary celebra­tions is to increase the visibility of the topics addressed byFriEnt and highlight its strengths and the contributions itmakes to conflict sensitive development and peacebuilding.

Sharing knowledge – creating impetus

The most important criterion for FriEnt’s communicationwork, both internally and externally, is its practical relevance.However, demonstrating this practical relevance, also inrelation to academic or international discourses, poolinginformation in response to specific needs and facilitating theexchange of experience are ongoing challenges.

In 2009 and 2010, the monthly newsletter FriEnt Impulses,published 10 times a year, provided information about cur­rent developments at FriEnt and its member organisations.In a well­established mix of country and thematic prioritiesin Impulse articles numbered from 40 to 59, academics andpractitioners explored current challenges and made recom­mendations for action. The focus was on Sudan, Ethiopia,Georgia, Burundi, Nigeria, Nepal and Colombia, as well asclimate change, land grabbing, elections, European peace­building policy, armed violence reduction, women, peaceand security, and the lack of a peace and conflict dimensionin the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

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

The number of visitors to the FriEnt website is steadilyincreasing. The website thus remains one of FriEnt’s keyinformation tools. Regular updates with relevant studies,analyses and opinion sharpen the focus of the website’scountry­specific and thematic pages and enhance its profileas a portal. During the anniversary year, we want to reacheven more people with our new and improved website andprovide tailor­made information. We hope that its moreaccessible design will encourage people to use our services –

FriEnt structure

25FriEnt structure

Steering committee

Member Acting Member

BMZ Dr. Ulla Mikota (Chair until January 2011) Christine Toetzke (until January 2011)Christine Toetzke (Chair)

GIZ Dr. Roman Poeschke Dunja BredeEED Dr. Wolfgang Heinrich (Chair) Heiner KnaussFES Jürgen Stetten (until September 2010) Katharina Hofmann

Jochen Steinhilberhbs Steffen Heizmann Dr. Kirsten Maas­AlbertKZE/Misereor Michael Hippler Norbert DittrichCivil Peace Service Group Carsten Montag, forumZFD Anne Storcks, AGEH (until December 2010)

Bernd Rieche, AGDFPlatform ZKB/INEF Ulrich Frey, Platform ZKB

Dr. Cornelia Ulbert , INEF ZIF Dr. Almut Wieland­Karimi Tobias Pietz

Team

Natascha Zupan HeadBrigitte Kirschner Office manager, WebmasterMarc Baxmann International Processes, Communication Anja Justen, Civil Peace Service Group Indonesia, EducationMartin Kraft, BMZ/GIZ (until August 2009) Middle East, Peacebuilding and SecurityCaroline Kruckow, EED South Caucasus, Land ConflictsJana Mittag, hbs (since Mai 2010) Democracy Promotion, Conflict ResourcesMarius Müller­Hennig, FES (since January 2010) UN, Peacebuilding and SecurityJost Pachaly, hbs (until December 2009) Peacebuilding ParadigmsBodo Schulze, BMZ/GIZ (since Dezember 2009) Middle East, Peacebuilding and Security, EducationSylvia Servaes, KZE/Misereor Nepal, Transitional Justice Angelika Spelten, Platform ZKB/INEF Kenya, Conflict Prevention Dr. Andreas Wittkowsky, ZIF (since January 2011) Peace Operations, Peacebuilding and Security

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