CCTS
Newsletter 10

Introduction

In July last year I was invited to run a Training Workshop on behalf of Responding To Conflict (RTC) in Conflict Management in El Obeid, Sudan. The invitation came from SOS Sahel UK, a British NGO, which has a Natural Forest Management Project (NFMP) at El Ain, near El Obeid.

The project area is important for mobile and sedentary pastoral groups and settled farming communities and conflict over land access is common. As more farmers settle in the area the land available for grazing is shrinking. Another factor is that the Civil War to the South means that access to pastures in that area is affected, resulting in some Nomads spending longer in the El Obeid area (putting more strain on limited natural resources such as water).

The training workshop brought together Traditional Leaders, Local Government representatives, representatives of various line ministries, NFMP staff and OXFAM staff for six days to explore the nature of conflict, analyse its causes, explore different interventions and practise skills. One of the main objectives was that some of these participants might go on to intervene in local conflict situations.

The Training Workshop

Some 30 people attended the workshop. Most had an understanding of English, ranging from fluent to basic, but some did not. It was thus decided to run the workshop in Arabic, using an interpreter. My co-trainer was Sudanese, whose first language is Arabic and so between the three of us we facilitated and translated.

It was clear from the round of Introductions that most of the key figures who could be influential in resolving these disputes were present at the workshop. We agreed a programme for the workshop with the participants, which would include looking at traditional Sudanese conflict resolution methods plus other approaches from around the world.

These traditional conflict resolution methods are based on the teachings of the Koran and, especially, the principle of forgiveness. People in conflict are exhorted to forgive each other and reconcile their differences. A wonderful demonstration of traditional conflict resolution methods was presented to the workshop in the form of a role play by the Traditional Leaders.

In time honoured fashion, each side blamed the other for causing the conflicts. When we repeated the role play and encouraged the participants to analyse the conflicts between Farmers and Nomads using conflict analysis tools, it became clear that the causes of the conflict were much deeper. The participants used some simple conflict analysis tools to gather information about the conflict and their different perceptions before the different parties were brought together for mediation.

Comparing the two cases, the participants decided that the traditional approach did not address the underlying causes of the conflict and so, after a while the conflict would re-surface and have to be resolved all over again. It was fascinating to observe the fusion of the traditional conflict resolution methods with the conflict analysis tools created by the participants in the second role play.

By the end of the workshop the different participants were already talking with each other about the possibility of working together for the first time. The chance to experiment with the tools during the workshop and to see how a new approach could work together with their own traditional systems gave the participants the confidence to try and intervene in one of the local conflicts between Farmers and Nomads.

The Conflict Intervention

The initiative was taken by the NFMP project staff, who approached four of the Traditional Leaders, from the July workshop, to work with them to try and resolve an ongoing conflict between a local village (Gagrur) and a group of Nomads (Baggara).

The Project staff and Traditional Leaders contacted the villagers from Gagrur, whom they knew through their work, to see if they would be amenable to a meeting to talk about land management issues. At this meeting, the villagers identified a conflict with a different group of semi-Nomadic Pastoralists (the Shenabla) as being a more important conflict.

The Project staff and Traditional Leaders thus decided to approach the Shenabla to seek out their views and see if they would be willing to try and resolve the conflict with the villagers. They were amenable and so separate further meetings were set up, at which the disputants were encouraged to use some of the conflict analysis tools to analyse the conflict.

One tool they used which was popular with all the participants is called the 'Conflict Tree'. This was developed out of work done in Wajir in North East Kenya by local people there in trying to resolve their conflicts. Each side in a dispute draws a tree in which the trunk of the tree represents the 'core problem', the branches are the symptoms or consequences of the conflict and the roots are the root causes of the conflict. With the consent of each side, the Trees can then be swapped with the other side so that each can understand how they both perceive the conflict. This can often lead to dialogue.

After discussing the situation separately with the Shenabla and the villagers, both sides agreed to a face-to-face meeting, which took place over two days and resulted in a written agreement (not an aspect covered in the workshop!) between the two sides.

The Follow Up

The above took place in August. In September, I had the opportunity to go back to Sudan, to meet with the NFMP Project staff and Traditional Leaders, who had undertaken the mediation as well as others who had attended the first workshop. I also had the opportunity to meet with the disputants in the conflict to get their views on how the whole process worked and was also able to watch a video of the process (taken with the disputants' consent!).

It was fascinating to see once again how the mediators had combined their traditional methods with the conflict analysis tools to great effect and also to hear from the disputants how much they valued the approach.

The Learning

It is imperative that training undertaken in different cultural settings takes account of traditional methods. It is also clear that the traditional methods attempt to resolve the symptoms of conflicts, but do not tackle underlying causes. We can all learn from different approaches to conflict, taken by different peoples and, for me, it re-affirms peoples' creativity in coming up with new and effective approaches when they are presented with the space and opportunity to do so.

It was also interesting to note that, although, ostensibly the conflict was a local one, the disputants were also seeing it in the context of the overall conflict in Sudan. Putting local conflicts in the broader context is thus a crucial element in trying to develop sustainable solutions to conflicts.

Paul Clifford

next workshop

newsletter  |  ccts