Number 5,
Spring 1997

CCCRTE

by Guus Meijer

On Thursday 27 and Friday 28 February 1997 the recently established Conflict Prevention Centre of the Dutch National Committee for International Cooperation and Sustainable Development (NCDO) organised a European Conference on Conflict Prevention. Although it was primarily an NGO initiative, a major objective of the conference was to influence policy in the European Union regarding conflict prevention, especially in Africa. It was attended by 300-400 participants from all over Europe, many from Africa and some from other parts of the world, representing a wide range of non-governmental development and relief organisations, governmental agencies, EC, research institutes, etc. The conference adopted an Action Plan for European Leaders and Civil Society, called the Amsterdam Appeal on Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding, which was presented to the European Ministers for Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Assistance, who were meeting in Amsterdam on Friday and Saturday.

Part of the conference's programme was a workshop on Empowerment and Training, which took place on the Friday morning and was attended by some 30 participants. This was followed on Saturday 1 March by a meeting in Kontakt der Kontinenten, a Training and Conference Centre in the middle of Holland. This opportunity to discuss issues around training in more depth was taken up by around 30 people, most of whom had also attended the previous day's workshop.

The Friday workshop, facilitated by Andy Carl from Conciliation Resources, started with a round of introductions and a listing of concerns with regard to training in this field. Among the points of interest to participants were: evaluation of training programmes; how to work ourselves as trainers out of a job; working with grassroots organisations and how to fund that line of work; linking training with sustainable action; training for civilian peace teams; what should people know, going into the field (e.g. stress management?); how to support people and empower communities in facing up to situations of gross injustice and oppression; linking different areas of training, in particular conflict resolution and human rights; mediation and conflict resolution techniques in traditional societies; whether conflict resolution is a set of "life skills", such as literacy and numeracy, or rather a specialist field; and, how to train theoretically informed, reflective practitioners.

Kevin Clements, from George Mason University's Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, gave an overview of the beginning of peace and conflict studies as a distinctive field in the 1950s and 1960s in the USA, whose pioneers intended to create an abstract, theoretical and quantitatively oriented science which would be relevant to policymakers -- much along the lines of economics. With the advent of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in the 1970s and 1980s, a turn towards practice occurred.

Kevin then suggested to try to locate ourselves, as practitioners and trainers, on a quadrant outlining the different orientations and traditions, with some key words, as follows:

Kevin also referred to Chris Mitchell's detailed list of "intermediary roles and functions" in conflict, such as explorer, convenor, advocate, enskiller, guarantor, monitor, etc. Exploring this attempt to map "the field" led to a wide-ranging discussion in which many new questions were raised. What about more "partisan" roles in conflict and the need to provide training or support for "primary parties"? Different training requirements and packages for different roles and different groups (training whom to do what) ? Does the motivation with which we do this work make a difference in its outcomes (put in terms of the "commercialisation of pain" vs. an "altruistic and humanitarian impulse")? How can conflict resolution training contribute to the building of a culture of peace? Is solidarity sometimes not more necessary than training programmes?

A two-hour discussion among so many participants from a wide variety of backgrounds could not produce more than an initial exploration and laying out of issues. The participants also briefly discussed a proposal to ensure that empowerment and training would not be overlooked in the Action Plan to be adopted by the Conference.

The Saturday meeting in Kontakt der Kontinenten brought together part of the same group and some new participants. After some exercises to get to know each other and the group a bit better, it was easily agreed that the original agenda had better be abandoned for a more open process. Facilitator David Grant from the International Fellowship of Reconciliation led a discussion in order to identify possible discussion items. The following list emerged: values and assumptions of training, standards (code of conduct, accreditation), communications (among trainers-practitioners; towards policy-makers; towards funders and wider world; as a tool for conflict transformation), comparative overview of existing training programmes, partnerships. A small group split off to discuss communications and partnerships (as related themes), while the majority decided to engage in a comparative overview of existing provisions. Given many participants' relative unfamiliarity with the field this was seen as a very useful exercise.

The widely divergent backgrounds, orientations and interests of the participants, noted before, made it almost inevitable to engage in a renewed effort to lay out the field, and Kevin Clements took to the flip chart again, producing maps and matrices of ever increasing complexity and refinement! On top of the quadrant presented in Friday's workshop, a number of new parameters were introduced and discussed, such as: formal education versus training (as part of informal education); training for interveners in situations of violent conflict versus situations of relative peace; working in the context of functioning legal and administrative structures versus collapsed or fragmented states; training people for intervention in other peoples' conflict versus preparing people for dealing with their conflicts themselves; working with (or being) actors at the top, middle or grassroots level, and in the state versus non-state sphere; elicitive, adaptive and prescriptive approaches to training.

A major issue of discussion concerned the question of "access". Most training and empowerment activities that participants in the meeting undertake either constitute a form of outside intervention in themselves or prepare people to work as "ex-pats" in areas of actual or potential violent conflict. Differences in language, culture, class and power, therefore, become highly relevant, particularly, though not exclusively, when the setting for the work is at the "grass-roots" level. Conflict resolution models and the training related to them are still to a large extent based upon middle-class and "Western" (or even more narrowly, North American) values and assumptions, mostly expressed in and through English.

The meeting ended with an identification of remaining needs, and of resources and strategies that could be mobilised to address them. The resulting list included: an overview of courses or provisions to become a trainer in this area; systems for sharing information about where people are involved in training projects and where training is requested or needed; an analytical overview of "training models" (what do people mean when they say they are involved in conflict resolution training?); a reliable database of "good" trainers and lecturers; topic-oriented working groups, e.g. on the use of the performing arts in training and conflict resolution; assessment of methods and lessons learned (what works in which context?); and, the development of a joint programme proposal for the preparation of people who will go out in the field, to be submitted e.g. to the EC.

Despite the remaining lack of clarity and sense of confusion, most participants felt that the exchange had been useful, instructive and enjoyable. New contacts were made, old ones renewed, and plans for collaborative action were discussed. Perhaps what emerged most clearly (certainly for me), was that more focused discussions will be necessary among people with more common ground in terms of type of work and orientation than were assembled here to create a truly cumulative process of mutual learning and enrichment among conflict resolution trainers. However, the two meetings undoubtedly made some modest contribution to the ongoing efforts to create European networks and global communities in the field of training for conflict prevention and resolution.

Guus Meijer is Director of Training at INCORE

newsletter  |  ccts