Peacepaces.com - Recently Updated Pages

why do we need conflict analysis tools

Anonymous — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 05:10:15 CST

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

POLICY ADVOCACY RESOURCES

winstonwolf — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 14:46:53 CDT

This resource kit has been developed as a part of LPI's efforts to expand its day-to-day operations to include policy advocacy and awareness raising on the countries in which it currently conducts grass-roots activities.The LPI Strategic Plan 2010 - 2015 describes this ambition in more detail. Specifically:

Policy work and awareness-raising
LPI engages directly and in collaboration with others on awareness-raising and policy work. It strives to enhance awareness of civil society conflict transformation processes, as well as raise pertinent policy issues deriving from the work in the field.

Awareness-raising addressing - Local, national, regional and international actors.
Policy work addressing - Regional and international organisations, governments, donors, as well as national and international church networks.

The resources on this page were collected as part of the 12 month process of developing LPI's policy advocacy framework and approach, and in undertaking pilot projects to test its thinking and strategy. These specific resources were developed as part of a workshop for LPI staff in developing pilot policy advocacy projects.

The existing resource kit 'Communication, use of the media and peacebuilding' contains resources that complements the material below.

Use, change or add a content:		Use, change or add an activity:
Advocacy Tools- developed for health care advocates, there are excellent guides, action kits and tip sheets for undertaking policy advocacy Advocacy and Awareness Event Planning- developed by the Cluster Munition Coalition, this guide includes basic definitions, and group activities on developing advocacy approaches. An Approach to Advocacy: Training Guide- Support for Analysis and Research in Africa- excellent resource for developing training in policy advocacy. CARE: Advocacy Tools and Guidelines- comprehensive manual that presents a process for developing policy advocacy projects from A-Z. Strategising for Change: Workshop Resources for Campaign Strategy- The title says it all. Some great tools and exercises for group exercises in developing policy advocacy projects. Tips on Good Practice in Campaigning- Solid manual that elements that are likely to combine to help make any campaign effective. Tracking Progress in Advocacy: Why and How to Monitor and Evaluate Advocacy Projects and Programmes- This paper introduces the scope of, and rational for, engaging in advocacy work as part of development interventions.		DESIGNING FOR RESULTS: Integrating Monitoring and Evaluation in Conflict Transformation Programs- This manual from Search for Common Ground and USIP is an exhaustive reference for designing projects in the conflict transformation field. The process and tools can be easily applied to policy advocacy project design. A guide to monitoring and evaluating policy influence- ODI has published this overview of approaches to monitoring and evaluating policy influence and is intended as a guide, outlining challenges and approaches and suggested further reading. Networking for Policy Change: An Advocacy Training Manual by POLICY- Developed for the field of reproductive health programs, there are some excellent tools for thinking about campaigns and policy. Pathways for Change: Theories about How Policy Change Happens- food for thought on how theories can help unlock the inner workings of the policymaking process to explain how and why a change may or may not occur. Practical Action in Advocacy- TearFund has a number of resources on developing policy advocacy projects, great tools and training ideas. Complemented by the manual on Understanding Advocacy. Their manual on project cycle management is also an excellent reference.

New Page from Ali

Aliiman — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 05:50:22 CST

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

Resource kit: The basics of peacebuilding/conflict transformation

Dafallah — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 05:26:58 CST

Conflict transformation is a process that recognizes that change is a reality. Conflict generates change but also peacebuilder's can also design activities that can alter relations within a conflict environment.

Participatory Action Research

Aliiman — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 05:19:51 CST

Participatory Action Research Introduction [5-6 lines] Background to the problem. What is the purpose and target audience of this module? What is not the focus (training of media organisations/conflict-sensitive journalism).

Use, change or add a content:		Use, change or add an activity:
Conflict transformation: an introduction Communications: Internal, external and use of the media Third content [...] ... New page from Ali		First activity [...] Second activity [...] Third activity [...] ...

A collaborative learning platform for peacebuilding

Aliiman — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 05:03:28 CST

	life-peace.org Use, change and add resources. Network with others. Create community. Peacepaces.com is a collaborative learning platform where peacebuilding practitioners, scholars - and just anyone who is interested - can find, change and add resources, as well as engage with others who have similar interests. ..learn more.

life-peace.org

Use, change and add resources. Network with others. Create community.

Peacepaces.com is a collaborative learning platform where peacebuilding practitioners, scholars - and just anyone who is interested - can find, change and add resources, as well as engage with others who have similar interests.

..learn more.

Resource Kits for trainers What's this?		Learning [s]paces
Communication, Use of the Media and Peacebuilding Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (PME & L) for peacebuilding Conflict Analysis: Methods and tools The basics of peacebuilding/conflict transformation Negotiation Facilitation tools: Content Processing Activities; Openers, Energisers and Closers Participatory Action Research		Capacity-building for networks Peacebuilding MA and PhD theses/dissertations Shared experiences in the African Council of Religious Leaders

Religion and Peacebuilding

Anonymous — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 06:41:32 CST

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

Gender and Peacebuilding

mikicesari — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 06:31:55 CST

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

What is peacepaces.com?

mikicesari — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 06:31:18 CST

Peacepaces.com is a collaborative learning platform for peacebuilding. It provides learning resources and spaces for peer production, exchange and discussion between peacebuilders.

Peacepaces.com is a wiki - a collection of web pages designed to enable anyone with access to contribute or modify content, just as in Wikipedia, the contents of peacepaces.com will develop with your contributions!

What can I do in peacepaces.com?
You can:

USE the resources that are available.
CHANGE the contents, or just comment and start discussions on contents.
ADD your own ideas and materials.
EXCHANGE your viewpoints, share experiences from your work and ask questions.
CREATE COMMUNITY, become engaged with peacepaces.com members!

How do I get started?
Once you have signed up as a member of peacepaces.com, you can change existing material and add your ideas, thoughts and resources. If you want to work with already existing pages, just use the EasyEdit button at the top of each page (left-hand side) and edit as you would do in other office applications. When you exit, don't forget to save your changes. You can of course also create new content pages. In order to do that first add a new page (see tool on the left-hand side of the page) and then edit using the EasyEdit function. Also have a look at the members section of peacepaces.com. Here you can not only see who has joined the peacepaces community, but you can also get in touch with the members by sending messages or inviting someone to become a friend.

Just try!
Try to add and change contents and interact with the other members of the community. Don't worry too much of learning to use the tools perfectly before starting, you only learn by doing and there is nothing that you can do that cannot be reverted by one of our moderators. Do not wait for your lecture or activity to be "perfect" before uploading it - the idea is to just let the members of the community grow your ideas.

Want to learn more? Get in touch with mikicesari@gmail.com or chachabooth@gmail.com.

HAVE FUN!

Negotiation

mikicesari — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 00:26:48 CDT

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

Content: Conflict Mapping

Anonymous — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:11:52 CDT

Brief description of the tool
Is a visual technique for showing the relationships between parties in the conflict. It was originally developed by Paul Wehr (Paul Wehr. Conflict Regulation. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1979.)

Purpose:

To reach a better understanding of the situation.
To see more clearly the relationships between the parties and how power is distributed among the parties.
To check the balance of one’s own and other’s engagement.
To identify entry points for action.

Strengths:

Can be used on micro and macro level
Good for group processes as it is a visual tool
Can be done from different perspectives/viewpoints and in this way show the differences in perception.

Weaknesses:

The visual expression of the conflict can give only a snapshot of the current situation, conflict dynamics are not visible.
Is relationship focused, less suited to analyse causes of conflict.

How to do a conflict mapping?

a) Working in conflict (Fisher et. al.)
The Working in Conflict guide sees conflict mapping mainly as a means to represent a conflict graphically that can help people to learn about their different viewpoints and perceptions. They suggest doing a conflict mapping in the following way:

1. Decide what you want to map, when and from what perspective. Choose a particular moment in a specific situation. In order to be helpful, the scope of your mapping exercise should not be too wide. It is often useful to do several maps of the same situation from different viewpoints. You can ask yourself how the different parties could see the very same situation differently.

For doing the mapping you can ask:

What are the main parties of this conflict?
What other parties are involved or connected in some way, including marginalized groups and external parties?
What are the relationships between all these parties? Try to present these on the map. (Alliances, close contacts, broken relationship, confrontation)
Are there any key issues between the party?

2. Place yourself/your organization in the map. This is the remainder that you/your organization is part of the situation and not external, even when you analyse it. Your organization is perceived in certain ways by others. Contacts or relationships with actors exist that can open opportunities for the working with the parties in the conflict (but at the same time might entail also negative consequences).

3. The mapping reflects a particular point in a changing situation and it points to action. This kind of analysis should be geared towards creating new possibilities. Therefore, use the mapping and ask yourself questions, such as: What can be done? Who can best do it? When would be the best moment? What is needed before and what should be done after?

4. It is also important to map the issues between the parties in conflict. Why does the conflict exist?
What is the incompatibility? Also think about the position of the conflicting parties. What are their views of the groups involved in the situation?

Adapted from: Fisher, Simon et. al., Working With Conflict. Skills and Strategies for Action, Responding to Conflict, London: Zed Books 2000, pp. 22-25.

b)
Paul Wehr’s “Conflict Mapping Guide”

Paul Wehr developed in 1979 a “Conflict Mapping Guide”. The conflict map should include the following information:

Conflict history: What were the origins and major events in the evolution of the conflict and the context in which the conflict is situated?

Conflict context: Conflict does not emerge in a vacuum. The scope and character of the context or setting within which the conflict takes place has to be established. Such dimensions can be geographical boundaries, political structures, relations and jurisdictions; communication networks and patterns; and decision-making methods. Most of these dimensions are applicable to a range of conflict types, from interpersonal to international levels.

Conflict parties: These are the decisional units directly or indirectly involved in the conflict and having some significant stake in its outcome. Wehr distinguishes three kinds of parties:

Primary parties: Are those who oppose one another (whose goals are or are perceived to be incompatible). Often they are using fighting behaviour. Primary parties have a direct stake in the outcome. The primary parties interact directly in pursue of their goals. Each primary party can be internally differentiated, be composed of smaller units.
Secondary parties: They have an indirect stake in the outcome. Often, they are allies of sympathizers with primary parties, but are not direct adversaries.
Third parties: These are actors such as mediators and peacekeeping forces which might intervene to facilitate resolution. They have an interest in the successful resolution of the conflict. [Comment chachabooth: Reflect when using this tool whether third parties could also be other third parties, such as foreign firms with other interests than successfully resolving conflict.]

When having identified the parties, think about what the relationship between the parties is – symmetrical/assymetrical – their leadership, their main goals and the potential for coalitions between them.

Goals and interests: Wehr highlights that goals and interests are not the same. While goals are the more or less acknowledged objectives of parties in conflict and usually expressed, interests are what really motivates the parties, what they really need to achieve: security, recognition, respect, etc.

Issues: A conflict will normally develop around one or more issues. Issues are point of disagreement and are often generated by one – or several – of the factors below:

Facts-based: disagreement over what is because of how parties perceive what is. Judgement and perception are the primary conflict generators here.
Values-based: disagreement over what should be.
Interests-based: disagreement over who will get what in the distribution of scarce resources, such as power, privilege, economic benefits, respect.
Nonrealistic: originating elsewhere than in disparate perceptions, interests, or values.

Causes and consequences: It is not always possible to distinguish a cause of conflict from a consequence. As conflict emerges, cause and consequence tend to blend. Hostility might be a consequence of one phase of the conflict and a cause for the next.

Dynamics: A conflict is constantly moving and changing. Some dynamics could be:

Polarization: As parties seek internal consistency and coalitions with allies and leaders consolidate positions, parties in conflict tend toward bipolarization, which can lead both to greater conflict intensity or simplification making resolution easier.
Spiraling: Through a process of reciprocal causation, each party may try to increase the hostility or damage to opponents in each round, with a corresponding increase from the latter. De-escalatory spirals are also possible.

Conflict regulation potential: Each conflict contains its own conflict-limiting elements and this is where peacebuilding engagement could find entry points:

Internal limiting factors: values and interest the conflicting parties have in common, cross-pressures of multiple commitments of parties that constrain the conflict, etc.
External limiting factors: for instance a higher authority who could intervene and force a settlement or an intermediary from outside the conflict.
Interested or neutral third parties: These are trusted by all parties and could therefore facilitate communication, mediate the dispute, or locate financial resources to alleviate a scarcity problem.
Techniques of conflict management: Methods such as mediation, conciliation, rumor control, etc.

Adapted from Wehr, Paul, Conflict Mapping, in: Burgess, Guy/Burgess, Heidi (eds.), Beyond Intractability, Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: September 2006 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/conflict_mapping/> (accessed 23 June 200) and <http://spot.colorado.edu/~wehr/40GD1.HTM>(accessed 23 June 2009).

strategic partnership for peace

Anonymous — Sun, 02 May 2010 07:33:35 CDT

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

Outcome Mapping and Most Significant Change (MSC) Technique

Anonymous — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:47:12 CDT

1) Outcome Mapping

What is outcome mapping and how does it fit with LPI’s Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning tool?

What is Outcome Mapping?[1]
Outcome Mapping is a specific approach to PMEL that was developed by the International Development Research Center (IDRC) in Canada. It sees development as a process that is basically about relationships between people and therefore takes people- and organization-centered perspective. The approach was developed as a response to fundamental challenges encountered by the Evaluation Unit of IDRC with evaluating development programmes. The key problem encountered relates to the requirement of measuring results of development projects, while sustainable change often happen due to a confluence of events, factors, and agencies. Therefore, Outcome Mapping takes as one of its premises that a programme should not focus on attribution (assuming a cause and effect relationship between programme and change in boundary partner), but on contribution instead (seeing the programme as one influencing factor among many others).

Outcome Mapping focuses on one specific type of result: outcomes as behavioural change, i.e. changes in the behavior, relationships, activities or actions of the people, groups, organizations that the programme works with directly. Instead of trying to prove that a specific change can be attributed to a specific programme (i.e. one actor), Outcome Mapping takes as one of its tenets that one actor can only contribute to outcomes. Outcome Mapping does not assume causal relationships between a programme and changes occurring, they are often linked to a programme but cannot be exclusively explained by it. Another central assumption of the Outcome Mapping approach is that focusing on impact in PME & L does not necessarily provide the information necessary to learn and improve development performance. Nevertheless, the importance of impact is acknowledged, impact remains the ultimate goal of development practice.

A key concept within Outcome Mapping is the one of “boundary partners”. These are those individuals, groups, and organizations with whom the program interacts directly to effect change and with whom the programme can anticipate some opportunities for influence. Below is illustrated how the Outcome Mapping approach sees the relationship with partners and the “real world”.

Outcome Mapping is a participatory methodology as it includes the ones implementing the programmes. Outcome Mapping moves away from the notion that monitoring and evaluation are done to a programme, instead it relies on self-assessment. The main purpose of outcome mapping is not external accountability or reporting, but learning. In this spirit, Outcome Mapping emphasises that every programme has to be prepared to change throughout its implementation, it needs to get better and better at doing its job in order to respond to its boundary partners’ changing needs.

What are the key steps in the Outcome Mapping approach?[2]

Outcome Mapping goes through three stages:
1) Intentional Design:
This can be seen as the “Planning” stage and it looks at the following questions:
Why a programme wants to make a contribution to a specific change (What is the vision to which a programme wants to contribute?) Who are the programmes boundary partners? What changes are being sought? How will the programme contribute to the change process?

2) Outcome & Performance Monitoring
This stage monitors the ongoing programme and provides opportunities for learning. Outcome Mapping defines three distinct but highly interrelated sets of activities and changes, and offers tools to monitor each one. Thus, in addition to monitoring changes in boundary partners (Tool: outcome journal), it also monitors the program’s strategies (tool: strategy journal) and organizational practices (performance journal) to enhance understanding of how the program has contributed to change.

3) Evaluation Planning
This stage helps the programme to identify evaluation priorities and develop an evaluation plan.

Why not Results-Based Management?[3]

Outcome Mapping does not use the RBM approach, such as Logical Frameworks, for a number of reasons:

The concepts of impact and attribution may limit the opportunities of programmes to learn.
Results chains assume a logical cause and effect relationship between the different levels (input, activities, outputs, outcomes, impact). This contradicts the understanding of development as a complex process. It is a simplification of reality, and while this is to a certain extent necessary, one needs to see the contextual reality that development programmes are part of.
This form of programming contradicts the relationships, vision and values of socially sustainable development. The emphasis on plans, budgets and accounts has implications for: partner selection, ways of programme design and implementation, what kinds of programmes are started, etc. There is a risk that such an approach reduces the potential for establishing strong partnerships and participation of stakeholders. This could harm the potential to achieve sustained results.
Attribution of impact to donors contradicts the multiple endogenous contributions and conditions necessary for sustainable development. Outcome Mapping looks at contribution instead, seeing the programme as one of many influences on the boundary partners.[4]
There is a contradiction between the notion of impact and the confluence of initiatives and conditions that lead to positive social change.
The focus on results bears the risk that the process that lead to their achievement – the how – is not reflected and learned from.

Bringing the Outcome Mapping and Results-Based Management together?[5]

With the application of Outcome Mapping it is explored to bring both approaches – outcome mapping and results-based management – together and use the merits of both. This is based on the belief that while the Results-based Management/the Logical Framework have limitations, their strengths – such as that they enable a “thinking-through” of projects/programmes – can be brought together with the strengths of Outcome Mapping.

For instance, the logical framework (or results chain) provides a good visualisation of the process of change and can be used to create understanding for the change process among the different stakeholders of a programme.

Working with results-based management, an organisation can aim at increasing the room for reflection and learning. This enables to adapt to changing environments. The LFA/results chain can be reflected and changed if necessary (changing circumstances).

The perspective when working with a logical framework/results-based management can be changed: the programme can focus on contribution instead of attribution, on outcomes instead of impact, on learning as well as accountability and on how and why results are achieved.

[1] See here: Sarah Earl/Fred Carden/Terry Smutylo, Outcome Mapping. Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programmes, IDRC, 2001. <http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-9330-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html> (accessed 29 May 2009); Sarah Earl/Fred Carden/Terry Smutylo, Brochure on Outcome Mapping. The Challenges of Assessing Development Impact, International Development Research Center (IDRC), 2001. <http://www.idrc.ca/uploads/user-S/10945665201om_pamplet_final.ppt> (accessed 29 May 2009)

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Diana Chigas and Peter Woodrow also highlight that there is a need to focus on attribution and linkages in their New Routes article (Diana Chigas/Peter Woodrow, Demystifying Impacts in Evaluation Practice, in: New Routes, Vol. 13, 3/2008, Uppsala (The Life & Peace Institute), pp. 19-22. (http://www.life-peace.org/sajt/filer/pdf/New_Routes/NewRoutes83.pdf).

[5] This is largely based on Outcome Mapping Highlights, Outcome Mapping and the Logical Framework Approach: Can They Share a Space? <http://www.outcomemapping.ca/forum/files/OM-LFA_DRAFT_165.pdf> (accessed 29 May 2009) and Daniel Roduner/Walter Schläppi/Walter Egli, Logical Framework Approach and Outcome Mapping. A Constructive Attempt for Synthesis, Zürich 2008. < http://www.outcomemapping.ca/forum/files/Discussion_Paper_OM_LFA_Synthesis_2008-1_126.pdf> (accessed 29 May) as well as own ideas.

2) Most Significant Change technique

The Most Significant Change (MSC) technique is essentially a participatory tool for monitoring and evaluation. It does not focus on the planning stages of a project. It occurs throughoout the implementation of a project and involves/can involve a wide range of stakeholders. In a nutshell, the MSC process involves the collection of significant change stories, which are then reviewed and selected from the bottom to the top level of a project (from beneficiaries, to project field staff, to regional headquarters, to global headquarters). The selection takes place in a group and the choice and reasons for the choice are communicated to the lower levels of the process. The basis of the process is to ask

"Looking back over the last month, what do you think was the most significant change in [particular domain of change]?"

It is a way to gather qualitative monitoring information. The MSC technique is best suited for programmes that are:

Complex and produce diverse outcomes
large with numerous organisational layers
focused on social change
participatory
struggling with conventional monitoring systems
highly customised services to a small number of beneficiaries.

As with the outcome mapping approach, it is believed that elements of the MSC technique can be brought together with a RBM-based PMEL system, in order to improve the learning potential and adapt to specific needs of the organisation.

References:

Rick Davies/Jess Dart, The 'Most Significant Change' (MSC) Technique. A Guide to Its Use, April 2005. <http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.pdf> (accessed 8 May 2009).

Outcome Mapping Highlights, Outcome Mapping and the Logical Framework Approach: Can They Share a Space? <http://www.outcomemapping.ca/forum/files/OM-LFA_DRAFT_165.pdf> (accessed 29 May 2009)

Sarah Earl/Fred Carden/Terry Smutylo, Outcome Mapping. Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programmes, IDRC, 2001. <http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-9330-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html> (accessed 29 May 2009)

Sarah Earl/Fred Carden/Terry Smutylo, Brochure on Outcome Mapping. The Challenges of Assessing Development Impact, International Development Research Center (IDRC), 2001. <http://www.idrc.ca/uploads/user-S/10945665201om_pamplet_final.ppt> (accessed 29 May 2009)

Daniel Roduner/Walter Schläppi/Walter Egli, Logical Framework Approach and Outcome Mapping. A Constructive Attempt for Synthesis, Zürich 2008. < http://www.outcomemapping.ca/forum/files/Discussion_Paper_OM_LFA_Synthesis_2008-1_126.pdf> (accessed 29 May 2009)

Dialogue meeting in Kigali

Nsanzintwali — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:08:57 CST

The Great Lakes Inter-Religious Network (GLIRN) Dialogue Meeting, March 2010 “Strengthening Multi- Religious Efforts for Peace Building, Sustainable Development and Reconciliation”

Concept Note

Background
Faith-based institutions, both local and international, play very important roles as contributors to peace building, sustainable development and reconciliation in many zones of conflict. One of the most important findings of cross-cultural conflict resolution research is that religion is a perennial and perhaps inevitable factor in both conflict resolution and reconciliation.
The Great Lakes Inter Religious Network occupies a centre stage in agenda setting of conflict mitigation, sustainable development and reconciliation in the Great Lakes Region and greater horn of Africa.
The Great Lakes Inter Religious Network (GLIRN) is an organ established under the auspices of the African Inter Religious Council to oversee the implementation of coordinated peace building and conflict transformation activities by the Inter-Religious councils and leaders within the Great lakes region. The working committee is composed of members of the respective national inter-religious councils within the region.
Other than Tanzania, all the other countries in the Great Lakes region including Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, Burundi, Democratic republic of Congo and Sudan, have been engulfed in a wave of interstate and intrastate conflicts in the recent past. The impact of these conflicts on people and environment has been tremendous; the number of refugees and internally displaced people has combined with environmental destruction to emerge as the single threat to economic development, democracy and sustainable livelihoods.
The Great Lakes Inter Religious Network impact may be measured not only in formal statements and public decrees, but also in the greater ease of relationships between communities evidenced in their increased crave for dialogue as opposed to confrontational approaches in resolving issues.
This concept paper is written against the background that while the Great Lakes Region has gone through a treacherous past, there have been tremendous efforts to mediate these conflicts and the role of religious leaders as mediators and facilitators of peace agreements has been wholesome.
Even though most of the major conflicts such as the Northern Uganda by LRA, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Southern Sudan are being transformed, there are scary challenges of building war torn societies hence the evident and urgent need for peace building and reconciliation.
Challenges of Peace building in war torn societies
· Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs); The region is faced with increasing numbers of refugees and IDPs living in very pathetic conditions where they have been exposed to secondary victimization of human rights abuses, diseases, food shortage and violence.
· Poverty; Persistent poverty constituted of social vulnerability and exploitation which has mainly claimed the youth as the majority population group.
· Proliferation of small arms and light weapons in the region which has minimized utilization and access to land worse still leading to loss of thousands of lives.
· Strive for natural resources in the DRC, in Uganda and elsewhere in the region, has created and still leaves space for potential conflict which needs timely strategies of intervention to prevent violent conflict.
· Governance Issues; where the region is faced with insurgency, lack of a state in Somalia and those with states are struggling with weak and institutions/instruments to institute good governance.
· Ethnic cleverages; which have been used to fuel conflicts for personal gains.
· Colonial legacy; whose remnants continue to linger and foster divisions in the region.
Therefore the need for peace building, sustainable development and reconciliation is evident and urgent hence the proposal by Great Lakes Inter Religious Network to host the second Regional Dialogue Meeting to address some of the post conflict needs.
The Problem Statement
The Great Lakes Region has a shared identity brought on by the common points of reference including; political structures & relations; socio-economic strata and multi-faceted ethnic/tribal and religious persuasions within each country. This shared identity forms a platform for creating and strengthening the inter-religious network through IRC’s.

This region has suffered armed conflict and struggles both intermittently (in some countries such as Rwanda and Burundi) and persistently (in other countries such as Sudan and DRC) along tribal/ethnic, religious and national lines. The proliferation of small arms and light weapons obviously contributes significantly in instigating, fueling and sustaining these conflicts. There is thus need to urgently and strongly address the challenge of Small arms & Light Weapons Proliferation and the ensuing consequences.

Religious Leaders, as we know, hold an essential and irreplaceable role in the process of either starting or dissuading conflicts. They wield influence and have been offered a platform to direct the course of society. Therefore, no group of leaders is better placed to advance shared security (by collaborative peace building and conflict transformation) in the Great lakes Region. Stronger still, is the positive effect and impact that can be experienced through inter-faith action towards this process.

The Youth have been the main perpetrators of these conflicts in the Great Lakes Region, either through misguided beliefs; coercion (e.g. forced recruitment of child soldiers); expected economic benefits and other such reasons. Furthermore, this age group constitutes the largest percentage of the regions’ population. Understandably, significant advances in the peace process cannot be achieved without the deliberate and positive inclusion of these young men and women. Youth leaders (more so, Religious Youth Leaders) have the capacity to mobilize, involve, teach and recruit other youth in the peace building & conflict transformation process – the best person to reach out to youth is a fellow youth. Youth Leaders can stand alongside their Senior Religious Leaders to speak out in one voice and positively shape their community. This is the rationale of the involvement of various youth leaders in the GL-IRN Conference, that also will be used to Lauch the Arms Down Campaign.

The role of Religious Leaders in Peace Building, Sustainable Development and Reconciliation
The paradox is the fact that religion is a source of intolerance, human rights violation and extremist violence yet at the same time is a fountain of conflict transformation, respect and defense for human rights, good governance and reconciliation. Courageous religious leaders have played invaluable functions in neutralizing conflict in their communities and this has subsequently contributed to the bigger peace in the region.
Religious institutions own a greater percentage of the region’s education, health, media, and various social facilities/services which are uniquely self sustaining and thus contribute enormously to growth and development which are embedded in peace.
Religious leaders have always been the prophetic voice of the people thus the role of religion has been and still remains central to peace building, reconciliation and sustainable development.
The issue of reconciliation is certainly one of the most sensitive in the region. However, the Great Lakes region is endowed with rich culture, natural resources, and diverse people with great leeway to realize peace, development and reconciliation if efforts to strengthen and deepen multi-religious approaches are maximized.
One tool which can be used effectively to campaign against the proliferation of small arms is the active participation by various leaders in the Arms Down! Campaign on Disarmament; which we can encourage during the GL-IRN Conference / Arms Down! Campaign Launch.
Hence emphasis shall be laid on multi-religious cooperation in the peace process within this region, through the GL-IRN Conference/ Arms Down! Campaign Launch.
GLIRN is aware that:
· One of the hardest things for a region, nation or a society to do is to come to grips with the evils it has done.
· The reconciliation part comes from addressing a point of pain or silence or frustration between our communities, and addressing it together.
· With the effect of the wrongs softened or reversed, a new relationship can be started on a firmer and more truthful footing, and transformation takes place.
· Reconciliation does not come easy. It's not just a political struggle; it's psychological, personal, and also spiritual. Just about everyone has had something done to them, and has done something to someone. A lot of suffering has been caused. A lot of walls have been built, but we can stand up and start afresh.
· Justice and order are important aspects of peace-building in a post-conflict situation where there is a need to end violence, disarm combatants, restore the rule of law, deal with the perpetrators of war crimes and other human rights abuses, the need to overcome or transform the enmities developed during a violent conflict and “build bridges between ordinary people” suggests a need for reconciliation
The Great Lakes Region member states should come to a point where they can declare that:
· We, the people of great lakes region, of many ethnic groups as we are, make a commitment to go on together in a spirit of reconciliation.
· Our region has the courage to own the truth, to heal the wounds of its past so that we can move on together at peace with ourselves.
· Reconciliation must live in the hearts and minds of all people in the region. Many steps will have to be taken as we learn our shared histories.
· As we walk the journey of healing, one part of the region apologizes and expresses its sorrow and sincere regret for the injustices of the past, so the other part accepts the apologies and forgives.
· We desire a future where all great lakes region nationals will enjoy their rights, accept their responsibilities, and have the opportunity to achieve their full potential. With reconciliation, we build for the future.

Specific Objectives
· To enhance the work of inter religious communities for peace and reconciliation and regional solidarity through sharing information, experiences and best practices.
· To identify major challenges hindering multi-religious efforts for peace, reconciliation and solidarity in the great lakes region.
· To strengthen inter-religious efforts and strategies in peace building, reconciliation and furthering regional solidarity
· To Lauch the ‘Arms Down Campaign”

Expected Outputs;

1. Report of the previously agreed upon action points for the GLIRN and participants to share best experiences on peace and reconciliation.

2. Participants to clearly identify their role in furthering regional solidarity and reconciliation.

3. Participants to come up with strategies for initiating, furthering and implementing regional solidarity, peace and reconciliation efforts using a faith based approach.

4. Participants to identify challenges in fostering peace, reconciliation and solidarity.

5. Participants to come up with concrete action plans for the next year in their respective inter religious councils.

6. Launch Arms Down Campaign in the Conference and commitments by the senior religious leaders, institutions and youths representatives against the proliferation of Small Arms and Light Weapons.
Participation
The invited Conference participants include senior religious leaders, youth representatives and/or technical staffs from:-;

· Religions for Peace-NY
· The African Council of Religious Leaders (ACRL)
· All African Conference of Churches
· African Youth Trust Program
· Global Network of Religious Children
· Inter-religious Religious Council of Uganda
· Inter-religious Council of Tanzania
· Inter-religious Council of DRC CONGO
· Inter-religious Council of Kenya
· Inter-religious Council of Burundi
· Inter-religious Council of Rwanda
· Interreligious Council of Sudan
· Focolare Africa
· World Christian Student Federation
· Pax Romana Africa
· OAIC youth representative
· Hindu Council of Africa
· FECCLAHA

Great Lakes Inter-religious
Network Member Countries

Rwanda Burundi Kenya Tanzania

Sudan Uganda
The Democratic Republic of Congo

Great lakes Inter-religous network in Kigali

Nsanzintwali — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 07:19:03 CST

Great lakes inter-religious network (GLIRN) conference to be held in Kigali, Rwanda from 22nd-25th March 2010.
There will be participants from different countries such as : Uganda, Sudan, Kenya, DRC, Tanzania, Burundi, USA, South Africa, Angola, Sierra Leone and Botswana.

Nsanzintwali Ayoub.
Kigali-Rwanda

IRCU peace project draft report

Kenogutu — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:21:26 CST

IRCU peace project draft report

INTER RELIGIOUS COUNCIL OF UGANDA PEACE AND NATIONAL RECONCILIATION PROGRAM

“Consolidating and Strengthening the Multi Religious Response to Peace Building and National Reconciliation in Uganda”

By; The Secretary General Inter religious Council of Uganda
P. O. Box 7502 Kampala- Uganda
Plot: 884 Centranary Road, Namirembe Hill
Tel: +257-414-342877, +2567-414-252271, 0312-265670/1
Fax: +256-41-231213
Email: secretarygeneral@ircu.or.ug/jkitakule@ircu.or.ug

Background to the programme
The Peace, Human Rights and Good Governance programme was operationalized in November 2006 in fulfillment of IRCU Strategic Goal 2 to promote and advocate for non-violence, peaceful co-existence and respect for human rights at all levels of society in Uganda.

The Programme’s Vision
“People of God living in Peace and Harmony”

The Programme’s Mission
To enhance the work of the IRCU member organizations and to link practice with policy on peace building, conflict resolution and reconciliation for transformation of society.

Overall Goal
To contribute towards the creation of a culture of non-violence and peaceful coexistence at all levels of Society in Uganda

Objectives of the Programme
· Provide a platform for coordinated response by religious leaders and groups in influencing national policy on peace building, conflict resolution and national reconciliation.
· Build the civic competence of religious leaders to educate communities on the need for, and use of non-violent means in resolving conflicts, furthering conflict transformation and reconciliation at all levels of society.
· Contribute to the processes of peace building and reconciliation in Uganda, the Great Lakes Region and the Horn of Africa Region.

Project Description:
The program aims at consolidating IRCU’s work towards national reconciliation and peace building. It subscribes to a faith based approach to peace building and reconciliation through tapping into the potential of religious leaders and their institutions as effective actors for social change, particularly for promoting dialogue, forgiveness, reconciliation and restoration.

Project Goal
To enhance the use of religious leaders and institutions to promote a culture of non violence and peaceful coexistence

Project Purpose
To scale up faith based response to peace and national reconciliation with a view to meeting the current peace and reconciliation needs in Uganda

Key Out puts in 2009
A three day national conference on sustainable reconciliation, justice and peace was held from 10th -12th September 2009 at Pope Paul VI Memorial Hotel and Hotel Africana respectively where religious leaders interfaced with cultural leaders, political leaders, people from the academia, civil society organizations, diplomats and other interest groups.

Impact:
As a result of this conference, the tensions between the Buganda Kingdom and the Central Government which had escalated into violence were handled. With the mediation of religious leaders supported by other cultural institutions and interest groups at the conference, the Kabaka of Buganda called off his trip to Kayunga which gradually led to cessation of hostilities between the two parties. Since then, dialogue between the President of the Republic of Uganda and the Kabaka has been going on. ü At the conference, the establishment of a faith based Peace Institute was conceived and preparations to have the institute in place are already underway. This has greatly attracted peacebuilding experts from the academia and practitioners ü At the conference, religious leaders agreed that this event should be institutionalized thus should be organized annually as a national advocacy tool where they interface with cultural leaders, government, political groups, and others

Numerical Outreach:
The Conference on Sustainable National Reconciliation brought together 800 participants ranging from religious leaders, cultural leaders, political leaders, government officials, members from the academia, women, youth, the disabled, and members from civil society organizations.

Two regional sensitization and dialogue workshops held. Following the tension in Bunyoro region which escalated in July 2009, a one day dialogue meeting was held in Hoima town where religious leaders from the four districts of Kibaale, Hoima, Buliisa and Masindi met to reflect on the conflicts in the region and their role in promoting peaceful coexistence.

Impact: ü Religious leaders offered themselves to mediate in the conflicts among the people of Bunyoro and the migrants, and to preach messages of peaceful coexistence ü They also vowed to remain in solidarity with each other in pursuit of peace, justice and reconciliation in Bunyoro and Uganda in general. ü Subsequently, religious leaders have been promoting peaceful coexistence on their respective radio programs ü Communities have visibly noted the unity and solidarity in their religious leaders and are beginning to rally behind them to promote peaceful coexistence Numerical Outreach: The workshop drew 120 religious leaders from Bunyoro. Ø The second dialogue meeting was held in Lira town and it drew 30 participants from the greater North. This meeting specifically targeted the youth from religious institutions, cultural institutions, education institutions and the political arena. The workshops aimed at sensitizing the youth on conflict resolution, peacebuilding and clearly indentifying their role in these critical processes. Impact: ü The youth leaders became proactive and developed work plans at the end of the meeting to mobilize other youth in their various communities. They came up with a series of activities that would involve fellow youth in peace building and conflict transformation. ü District interfaith youth fora for peace and reconciliation were established as platforms for dialogue and unified response to issues of peace building and conflict transformation. These youth fora work hand in hand with cultural and education institutions and ü A youth network for northern Uganda was established to strengthen and consolidate collaboration among the youth in the region Numerical Outreach: The meeting was attended by 30 youth leaders from the Greater North. One regional sensitization workshop for the youth held This meeting was also held in Lira town where student leaders and peace clubs representatives convened to share their experiences in peace building and reconciliation and also define their role in promoting peaceful coexistence. Impact: ü Youth peace clubs were established in the selected faith based schools which did not originally have the clubs established ü In schools where the clubs existed before, they were strengthened by the dialogue meeting and experience sharing ü The young people came up with action plans to enroll as many students as possible to work as active agents for peace and reconciliation Training for Institutionalized Religious Bodies (IRB) Technical staff on peace and conflict resolution skill conducted The workshop was aimed at preparing technical staff from IRCU member organizations and regional faith based networks to address issues on conflict transformation and national reconciliation. Impact: ü IRB technical staff capacity to act for peace and reconciliation strengthened ü There was consensus building among the staff on the IRCU peace and reconciliation agenda ü Staff were able to redefine the role of religious institutions in addressing and advocating for reconciliation ü They also identified the relevance of religious institutions amidst contemporary challenges in spear heading the process of national reconciliation Numerical Outreach: The workshop was attended by 30 technical staff from IRBs and faith based networks. Operationalization of the reconciliation M&E framework completed A complete M&E framework for the Peace, human rights and good governance program has been put in place which will facilitate project inputs and outcomes and held in monitoring progress at different levels and create value for money in all activities. Numerical outreach: The workshop targeted 35 technical staff both from IRCU and the IRBs. Faith based IEC materials This included the production of brochures, T-shirts with messages promoting peaceful coexistence and tolerance, umbrellas, bags, posters and a conference magazine.

How can we use Peacepaces.com for our work?

mikicesari — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 03:49:23 CST

First brainstorming session:

To do work effectively there is need for knowledge and skills which the website provides
It is a tool for clarification and it is a way of learning from different IRCs and it helps to improve methodology through different ideas from peers
It is a channel where people meet and share ideas this can be a tool for organisational learning and share experiences
Use it as a framework to build on local experiences and share among ourselves, can edit the evaluation report through using SWOT analysis
Use it a tool for advocacy and also rally support at the international level on different issues. The only question is how to verify stories/information on sensitive issues e.g. violation by security forces ( try ushahidi.com)
The complimentarity between peacepaces and other websites- for IRCs, can upload information from the websites to peacepaces
If one is a trainer the tools are given for various activities
Used as a channel for advertisement, talk about what you do and people engage with it

What is the added value of this to your work? How do you engage with it in your work?

The use of IT as a resource for peacebuilding. Not much attention on this in peacebuilding, how can such a horizontal platform be used? This can be used in sharing of information, experiences.
Practical examples - uploading reports on forums, documentation of success stories, manuals eg civic education manual, materials on interfaith dialogue.

There is a need to create a page on interfaith dialogue and upload material on this. Uganda has already developed a concept note for this. the page opened would be designed to cater for the various needs that emerge.
in other countries material is already in existence on various issues.

What	How	Who	When
Use the resources already available for our programme work including training	Get people in each IRC on board, so that it does not become a one-man-show, in each organisation. Provide feedback and input on the materials. Print out all relevant training materials, share it with the trainers and project people, decide what to use. Make an inventory of the resources available for training in every IRC and communicate it to Peacepaces.com (the moderators). Internalise and adapt the materials available to the local needs. LPI chaps will support chaps in IRCs in induction for adoption of M&E methodologies and tools (only through peacepaces.com).	Every participant. Every participant. Godfrey on M&E (onentho); Martha on M&E (marthamukulu); Ken Ogutu on Conflict Analysis (kenogutu); Bilali Ali on Conflict Analysis and M&E (blilaliali); + whoever else wants to volunteer. Every participant, moderators will coordinate. Every participant. LPI (Olivia, Jeremy, R&A, Wangari, Michele), IRCs (((anyone who needs support)	March 15. On going. April 15. March 20. On going. On going.
Create a big section acessible from the 'home' page on interfaith dialogue and peacebuilding, everyone uploads material that is then organised by the moderators. This includes; training materials articles on thematic issues conflict analysis success and failure stories, lessons learnt stories from the field Other	Create section accessible from the home page. Each participant goes back to their IRCs, looks into all the resources available and starts uploading. One moderator from IRCs oversees the process (english) and another moderator in French language. Moderators will interact with other moderators on decision making. ACRL should champion and advocate for this work (the new).	Michele. Each participant. Kenogutu, Tshibanda (Cecile), Noor (Awdaud). "" Marthamukulu /awdaud	February 17. Start on February 19, coordination by moderators, By end of June we assess where we are. On-going. On going. March 31, + oin going.
Explore the use of this technology in our actual work	Open a section in Peacepaces.com on how to use this and similar technologies in our peacebuilding work. Select leaders to pioneer this exploration. Look for examples already existing out there. Involve thought leaders in this exploration in your area. On-going process. Involve other IRCs, faith based organisation and others. ]	Michele Hamza (mtunu); Michele (mikicesari), Olivia (okibui), Ayoub (nsanzintwali) Same	Now From March 1, ongoing. Same
Plan on how to involve other IRCs in Africa in this platform	Organise refresher sessions that include other IRCs not represented. Share our training report with them. Invite them as member of Peacepaces.com - share the website itself. Invite others to join and share their experiences and materials. Look for leaders that can foster innovation in each IRC/organisation, talk to them, independently from their official position.	ACRL, LPI LPI does report,Martha shares. Everyone Every participants, particularly the moderators	By end of 2010. March 20. March 15. On going.
Explore how to use materials that are on this platform to engage with the resources from abroad in our work	Talk to them, engage them. Invite them to join the discussions, and to share their resources. Use other social networking platforms to advertise peacepaces.com	Every participant, especially leaders leading the exploration (see above).	On going.

NGO Networks & NGO Networking

Anonymous — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 01:45:36 CST

NGO Networks & NGO Networking

Today, an increasing number of NGOs are organising themselves in networks and/or are networking at local, national, regional and international levels. This can be explained by a situation in the world where issues of interest interlink. As tools of information and communication technologies have advanced, networking and collaboration among NGO actors with similar interests are not only possible, but also less complicated to set up and facilitate. On the other hand, networks may not be entirely uncomplicated organisms as they include a variety of actors with different expectations and possibilities/intentions to contribute to the network. Thus, in order to maintain sustainability and efficiency, extra efforts need to be put both on building sufficient trust and social capital within the network and on the development of suitable structures for management and governance of the network. It is furthermore important that NGOs joining the networks in advance has done a costs/benefits analysis to determine whether or not network participation will meet their particular needs[1].

This concept paper will look firstly at what a network is and what the characteristics of an efficient network might be said to be. It will then move on to network formation and the specifics of network leadership. After that some space will be dedicated to the quite specific demands placed on networks in fragile environments and a discussion about the benefits and risks involved in networking in general. The paper will also look at capacity building within networks and specific observations with regards to funding and donor relations. Finally a list of resources and further readings on NGO networking will be provided.

What is a network?
Even though one should refrain from generalising about what signifies a network, there are a few common characteristics, which appear to be generally applied. Networks are created for very different reasons and entail various structures depending on the goal(s) intended to be achieved within the network. Networks can include either formal or informal structures and vary in member contribution and benefits[2].

Definition
The definition proposed for this concept paper (i.e. networks operating in the NGO sector) takes on a broad approach and is taken from Taschereau and Bogler (2006):

“Groups of individuals and/or organizations with a shared concern or common interest, who voluntarily contribute to knowledge, experience and/or resources for shared learning, joint action and/or to achieve a shared purpose or goal and who rely on the network to support their own goal”.

“Groups of individuals and/or organizations with a shared concern or common interest, who voluntarily contribute to knowledge, experience and/or resources for shared learning, joint action and/or to achieve a shared purpose or goal and who rely on the network to support their own goal”.

Aside from the abovementioned voluntary basis upon which individuals commit to a network, the relationship among the networks’ members needs to be based on mutual trust in what can be likened to a social contract. Network members must trust each other enough to enable mutual accountability but also free discussions and debates about what the focus of the network should be and what the network should look like. There must also be enough trust for members to dare to share experiences and ideas for learning with each other. This trust is necessary for the network to be able to grow and function, but is also part of the social capital that comes out of networks as they grow and mature[3].

As has been mentioned a network can take on several forms and be more or less formalised. The important thing is that the chosen form is adapted to fit the motivation and purpose of the network as it has been articulated by the network members. This also means that a network’s form and degree of formalisation can change over time in order to best fit the various needs that might be defined by its members and most important stakeholders as the context in which the network exist changes[4]. Briefly it can be said that it is possible to divide networks in to types depending on what interests they share and what they see as their main preoccupation. Communities of practice does e.g. focus on capacity building within their specific field of expertise, knowledge networks often focus on the sharing and generation of knowledge within a certain area, while sectoral networks focus on a specific sector such as e.g. general development issues, peace and conflict, or health and sanitation. Networks can of course also be placed on different levels within society; the local, the regional, the national or the international as well as a combination of all of these. For a more thorough coverage of different network types and models please see the appendix attached to this concept paper.

Efficient networks
In order to be efficient networks must posses “characteristics of strong social capital, leadership, governance and management, joint learning and mutually beneficial partnerships with donors”. Furthermore they need to have a diverse and dynamic structure and a membership dedicated to excellence and a democratic decision making processes[5].

According to Asher networks are effective “when they achieve their goals and satisfy partners or members and their major stakeholders”. The extent to which goals are achieved must be measured based on what the members of the network and their possible stakeholders originally defined them to be[6]. Thus the importance of internal ownership and continuous evaluation and re-evaluation among the networks members of what the common goals should be needs to be underlined[7].

This leads us on to the various ways in which networks are formed and initiated.
Network formation and network sustainability The sources for the development of a network vary from a top-down formation (usually donor-initiated, including so-called Northern “supporters” and Southern “beneficiaries”) to bottom-up formation (including less donor-oriented informal networks created for a specific purpose, accompanied with need to coordinate organisations that share similar interests). In addition, formation of a network can also occur as a compensatory mechanism, that is, the network is created to fill various gaps in society (service, information, organisation etc.).

There is a strong trend in the literature on NGO networking to emphasise the greater chance of success for networks that are the result of a bottom up formation than those that are the result of entirely donor driven processes. This does however not mean that donors cannot be part of initiating a network. Donors do however then need to see the need for long term assistance provision. Donors also need to be prepared to take on a more flexible sponsor role to the network compared to the what is usual in the traditional donor- NGO relationship. Some argue that the golden rule for success is to always let a network start from its own resources in order to not counteract the great need for autonomous inherent, voluntary and committed ownership of the network among its member organisations[8]. The general agreement is however that a certain amount of flexible donor support in a network’s formative stages is beneficial even though long-term support is more important than large amounts of money at the initial stage of network formation.

Regardless of their structure or form successful networks go through a range of phases. A network is always started by an initiator who stimulates and calls for others to join forces around a common topic, problem or concern in order to upgrade and upshift NGO potential within that particular area. Such a catalytic role demands time, reflection and financial resources in order for it to be performed well. This first scoping phase is spent exploring different potential members and their capacities, interests and expectations concerning a possible network membership. Once that has been done the network can enter an operational or consolidation phase. During this phase the network can still be very informal but it has started to grow into full implementation of those things that it was set up to do (information sharing, capacity building, advocacy work, or service exchanges and provision). Structures for governance, management and information sharing are also discussed among network members. In this as well as in the scooping phase, face-to face meetings and trust building are two very important components[9]. Theses structures are then themselves consolidated in a third phase that also might deal with reformulation of goals and objectives in order to face new challenges. The final stage will include either the dissolution of the network, as it has fulfilled the function it was created for, or the evolution or adjustment of the network to deal with new issues. It is important to point out that sustainability of a network not always is a goal in itself. Some networks are naturally very time bound and simply cease to exist when they no longer meet the needs of their members or stakeholders. According to most writers it will take between five to ten years for a network to become established and operative[10].

Network sustainability will to a large degree depend on the level of trust and social capital that existed before network formation and that is generated during the life-span of a network. Another important factor for sustainability is the adaptability to changing environments and the needs of members. The flexibility and long-term support that is allowed for by donors will also play a small even if minor role for network sustainability. The degree to which networks can institutionalise the contacts it has with membership organisations in order to avoid that contacts only are based on individuals will also be important as will the support from senior level leadership within membership organisations[11]. In the same way the type of leadership applied within the network plays an important role for the sustainability of the network[12].

Network leadership
Good leadership is one of the major needed ingredients in efficient networks. The very specific characteristics of networks do, however, also demand a specific leadership. Rather than the sometimes top-steered leadership of organisations or companies a good network leadership knows how to “lead in between[13]” in order to facilitate for and encourage inputs and contributions from all members to the common goal of the network. In the same way it is important that the secretariat of any network sees it as its main function to coordinate and manage the relations and structures within the network rather than steer it[14]. This in order to help the network to maintain egalitarian, transparent and democratic principles were all members have the same possibilities to participate and contribute to the definitions and fulfilments of the network’s goals[15]. Along these lines Paul Skidmore identifies six characteristics for good network leadership[16].

Network leaders lead from the outside in

A good network leader or facilitator starts by looking for the needs of the members, users or stakeholders of the network. They then work their way backwards in order to find the best means, resources and capacities and ways of motivating members in the network to work together for their fulfilment.

Network leaders mobilise supplies of energy

In networks finding ways of sharing, unlocking and harnessing existing knowledge on how to cope with an ever changing context is one the most important leadership tasks.

Network leaders foster trust and empower others to act

The importance of trust in networking and network formation has already been emphasised. This trust needs to be coming both from the members of the network but can also be greatly facilitated by the network’s leadership. This also means that the leadership needs to be flexible and allow for and empower the members of the network to act.

Network leaders help people to grow out of their comfort zones

In order for partnerships within networks to attain the flexibility and the trust needed for sharing to take place it is important that these partnerships are seen as an activity and a relationship rather than a formal structure. That also means that network members will need to be encouraged to sometimes leave their comfort zones in order to build substantial relationships and sometimes catch and solve problems that otherwise might fall between the gaps.

Network leaders are not all-knowers but leading learners

For a good network leader it is more important to be an eager learner and a facilitator of learning among members than to know everything and have all the answers.

Network leaders nurture other leaders

In order to boost capacity building among network members a network do not only need to have committed and dedicated learners as its members. It also needs to have a leadership that is willing to nurture other leaders within the network and who does not seek to consolidate structures that are marked by top-down steering mechanisms.

Network benefits and risks
The intrinsic benefit of a network formation is the underlying assumption that the capacity of a network is greater than the sum of its parts, that is, that the capacities of the member organisation together create a synergy greater than the capacity of each individual member (1+1= greater than 2).

There are a variety of existing reasons why networks develop and why NGOs decide to join them[17]:

Benefits of network membership: Need for access to knowledge, information, expertise and financial resources (donor attraction) Need for coordination of knowledge, information Increase the organisations’ efficiency, outreach and impact Strengthen the organisations’ advocacy capacity Increased influence in policy formulation at national and international levels Increase the organisations’ visibility of issues (overcoming isolation) Develop shared practices and shared learning Increasing the Profile or Legitimacy of Member NGOs and their needs Mitigate risks Need for support and solidarity New ways of understanding and intervening in complex circumstances (shared diagnosis, analysis and strategic coordination of action Expanding opportunities to start projects

Benefits of network membership:

Need for access to knowledge, information,

expertise and financial resources (donor attraction)

Need for coordination of knowledge, information
Increase the organisations’ efficiency, outreach and impact
Strengthen the organisations’ advocacy capacity
Increased influence in policy formulation at national and international levels
Increase the organisations’ visibility of issues (overcoming isolation)
Develop shared practices and shared learning
Increasing the Profile or Legitimacy of Member NGOs and their needs
Mitigate risks
Need for support and solidarity
New ways of understanding and intervening in complex circumstances (shared diagnosis, analysis and strategic coordination of action
Expanding opportunities to start projects

There are however also a number of risks associated with network membership:

Risks involved with network membership: · Loss of autonomy- NGOs needs to consider how much interdependency they are prepared to commit to before joining a network Loss of responsibilities Requirements of membership Unclear accountability structures Domination of the most active members If poorly constructed and managed, networks can translate into more work rather than a reduction Loss of identity if poorly represented Inappropriate leadership Networks based on individuals and personal contacts risking lost benefits when as individuals leave Placing attention at the network level may take time and energy from the grassroots or local levels

Risks involved with network membership:
· Loss of autonomy- NGOs needs to consider how much interdependency they are prepared to commit to before joining a network

Loss of responsibilities
Requirements of membership
Unclear accountability structures
Domination of the most active members
If poorly constructed and managed, networks can translate into more work rather than a reduction
Loss of identity if poorly represented
Inappropriate leadership
Networks based on individuals and personal contacts risking lost benefits when as individuals leave
Placing attention at the network level may take time and energy from the grassroots or local levels

For these reasons it is important that NGO’s do a cost and risk analysis before they join a network as it is important for the sustainability and efficiency of the network that members can commit to the goals of the network and make them their own[18].

Besides ensuring that member NGOs reflected sufficiently on why they are joining the network and are prepared to make the goals of the network their own much can be done to avoid the risks within networks by ensuring that internal communication structures are functioning properly so that all members have access to the same information. Clear and commonly agreed on accountability structures and enforcement mechanisms also help to avoid risks related to inappropriate behaviour by certain network members or an inappropriate network leadership for that matter[19]. Institutionalisation of contacts with and within membership organisations as well as the recognition of the goals of the network by senior leaders within membership organisations should also go some way to avoid some of the risks described above. In the end of the day networks will however be rather dependent on the political will of its members and a skilled leadership that can enable an as equal playing field as possible for all members of the network regardless of size or representation.

Networks in fragile environments
As we have seen social capital can always be said to be both a prerequisite for and an outcome of networking. Factors of social capital such as trust, transparency and respect are , however, often missing in fragile environments. For that reason a more active effort will be needed in order to generate these aspects in network development in fragile environments than in others[20].

While fragile environments impede on the effectiveness of networks they tend to affect the performance of certain activities rather than the coordination and internal communication of and within networks. According to Blum and Hewitt the activities that are most affected by fragile environments are election monitoring, community development, activities related to transitional justice, natural resource conflict management, reintegration activities and trauma healing. Blum and Hewitt also state that the most disruptive fragile environments are armed conflict, weakened security and governmental crisis. Furthermore they also claim that fragility tends to strengthen the transparency of decision making, increase the leadership’s ability to foster innovation, collaboration and open communication within the network. Fragility also increases the levels of trust between the network members at the same time as it also increased the competition for available resources[21]. Thus it seems as if fragile environments both places more demands for what is regarded as a need to “lead in between” at the same time as fragility also fosters this very type of leadership.

Through their generation of social capital networks can seemingly function as conflict prevention and resolution mechanisms as the trust, openness and transparency that underlie effective networking can increase communication among various constituencies. Thus resistance towards instrumentalisation by certain parties of the conflict may also be increased. Local level networks can also have a stabilising effect on fragile environments by managing and increasing existing social capital at the local level. It is however important to remember that if these networks are not supported properly in their development the risk for instrumentalisation and cooption by certain interests in a conflict increases. In fragile environments this risk also seems to be somewhat higher for informal networks than for formal and more institutionalised ones.

According to Allen Nan, Eliatamby and Kanyako the interactions of efficient peacebuilding networks are shaped by the need for autonomy and confidentiality. This need for autonomy is also seen in the characteristic of successful peacebuilding networks to avoid the teaching of “one right way” of conflict resolution and prevention. Rather successful peacebuilding networks allow for and respect the multiple approaches that their members represent. Various venues and forms for the sharing of knowledge and experiences, such as e.g. working groups and committees, can be used in order to reflect this respect and increase the overall capacity of the network and its members. In the same vain policy advocacy work that is undertaken by peacebuilding networks should only include issues that falls within the broad and general consensus of the network. Any statements made as part of an advocacy campaign need to be certain not to portray network members as taking sides in a conflict[22].

Efficiency in peacebuilding networks appear to be specifically sensitive to both issues of trust and good network management. Due to rapid changes in conflict environments, the need for quick decision making procedures will make it important for network members to decide what issues needs to be decided by only a few and what needs to be decided by all members. Matters of security might further affect possibilities to communicate over long distances and to facilitate face to face meetings in these networks. For these reason it will maybe be more important for peacebuilding networks than for any other to balance the need for clarity with the need for flexibility. The need for clarity here refers to clarity regarding the mission, purpose and structures of the network, while the need for flexibility refers to the need for both the network and its members to adapt to changing internal and external pressures and environments with regards to the conflict situation, internal relations within the network and donor relations[23].

More than anywhere else networks in fragile environments tend to be donor driven, often created with the ultimate goal of peacebuilding in mind. More grassroots driven networks are, in fragile environments, often created out of short-term and very urgent needs meaning that donors seldom have the time to influence their agendas[24].

Capacity building within networks
A large number of networks deal with capacity building and shared learning through the exchange of experiences and best practices. The need for an environment were members dare to share has already been mentioned as one important aspect in order for such capacity building to take place has already been mentioned in this paper. In order for capacity building to take place in networks their members, however, also need to have an intrinsic interest in organisational change and have the characteristics of learning organisations. I.e. they need to be agile in order to adopt to changing environments at the same time as they need to have an interest in aligning their organisational form with their stated purpose and goal. Networks can, however, also promote these qualities among their members through the inclusion of network members “that indicate readiness for change; invite /encourage a broader base of participation from each member organisation so that a critical mass is bringing back ideas and innovations; choose NGO staff as network members who are willing and able to transfer the knowledge to others in their organisations…and develop a clear strategic intention to be a capacity builder”.[25]

Funding and donor relations
Certain aspects on the specifics of donor-network relations have already been touched upon in this paper. This paragraph will therefore satisfy itself with a brief summary regarding this issue.

With regards to networks there is a need for a long term funding approach and donors need to depart from classical project cycle thinking. At a minimum it takes five years before a network becomes effective and reaches the hight of its implementation capacity, some writers even argue that it takes as long as ten years. Donor support often tends to be much more short term and demanding effective outputs and activities already after two or three years. It is also important to see that networks and the social capital that they generate if effective it themselves can be seen as an output. Thus more focus should at least initially be placed on the further development of the network than on any specific activities that the network perform. Here it is once again important to remember that the decision about what activities a network is to perform needs to be a result of the autonomous decision making process of the network itself rather than of the donor if the network is to be sustainable. Few networks have survived for long as long as the sole reason that members have joined them is possible available funding. The relationship between the donors and the network thus needs to be marked by trust and flexibility allowing the network to develop and choose its path as its members sees best fulfil their needs as well as those of their stakeholders. [26]

Bibliography and suggestions for further reading

Allen Nan, Eliatamby and Kanyako 2007 “NGO networks for peacebuilding”

Ashman “Closing the gap between Promise and Practice: A framework for planning, monitoring and evaluating Social Development networks” available at http://www.impactalliance.org/ev_en.php?ID=9173_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC

Blum and Hewitt 2007 “The impact of fragile environments on NGO netoworks: A comparative analysis of three west African countries” available at http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/ngo_networks/report_final_20070731.pdf

Fulk, J. and Stephens, K.J., “NGO Networks in the Global Sphere”, paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association,TBA,San Fransisco,CA. Online (PDF). 2008-09-12 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p171163_index.html

ICCO 2004 “Networking for learning; what can participants do?”

Liebler, Caludia and Ferri, Marisa 2004 “NGO Networks: Building Capacity in a Changing World”, Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance Office of Private and Voluntary Cooperation.

Plastrik and Taylor 2006 “Net Gains: A handbook for network builders seeking social change” available at http://www.impactalliance.org/ev_en.php?ID=44035_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC

Royal Tropical Institute, “Expericences of NGO networks working on HIV/AIDS”, Information and Library Services.

Skidmore in”Network Logic” 2004 available at www.demos.ac.uk

UNDP, Holmén and Jirström 2000 ”Optimizing Efforts – A Practical Guide to NGO Networking, Office to Combat Desertification and Drought (UNSO).

More resources on NGO networking is available for free at www.impactalliance.org

[1] Liebler and Ferri 2004 ”NGO Networks: Building Capacity in a Changing world ”pp. 5, 29-30

[2] Ibid p. 15

[3] ICCO 2004 “Networking for learning; what can participants do?” p. 9, Liebler and Ferri 2004 p. 7 Ashman “Closing the gap between Promise and Practice: A framework for planning, monitoring and evaluating Social Development networks” p. 2

[4] Liebler and Ferri 2004 pp. 27

[5] Ibid p.4

[6] Ashman 2001 quoted in Ashman “Closing the gap between Promise and Practice: A framework for planning, monitoring and evaluating Social Development networks” p. 2

[7] ICCO 2004 p. 6,

[8] ICCO 2004 pp. 9,13, Liebler and Ferri 2004 pp.22, 57

[9] UNDP 2000 “Optimising efforts: A Practical guide to NGO networking” p. 30

[10] ICCO 2004 p. 7, Liebler and Ferri 2004 pp. 27, 58

[11] UNDP 2000 p. 18

[12] Liebler and Ferri 2004 pp.25-26,

[13] Skidmore in”Network Logic” 2004. p. 92

[14] UNDP 2000 p. 21

[15] ICCO 2004 p. 11,

[16] Skidmore 2004. pp. 95-99

[17] Liebler and Ferri 2004 pp. 28-29

[18] Liebler and Ferri 2004 pp. 5, 29-30

[19] Plastrik and Taylor 2006 “Net Gains: A handbook for network builders seeking social change” p. 84

[20] Liebler and Ferri pp. 31-33, Allen Nan, Eliatamby and Kanyako 2007 “NGO networks for peacebuilding” p. 2

[21] Blum and Hewitt 2007 “The impact of fragile environments on NGO networks: A comparative analysis of three west African countries” pp. 6-7

[22] Allen Nan, Eliatamby and Kanyako 2007 pp. 10, 14-15

[23] Allen Nan, Eliatamby and Kanyako 2007 pp. 17-20

[24] Allen Nan, Eliatamby and Kanyako 2007 p. 6

[25] Liebler and Ferri 2004 pp. 6-7

[26] Liebler and Ferri 2004 pp. 54-58

Shared experiences at the African Council of Religious Leaders

Anonymous — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 01:09:24 CST

Key documents to understand ACRL:

Mission and objectives
Mission principles and context of formation
ACRL News
Training materials
Tools for conflict analysis
On-going discussions
What ACRL should become: visions from ACRL's fellows
Updates of IRCs
Onentho Vision
PDF File
Word file
Another web page
Our Page
PDF DOC
My page to upload
Discussion
IRCU Report
Forum
IRCU peace conference highlights

How can we use Peacepaces.com for our work?

Activity: Moving from Analysis to Action

Kenogutu — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 01:04:36 CST

Purpose:	To introduce a framework to participants how the move from analysis to action can be made when applying the four dimensional approach To discuss possible action strategies for a conflict that has been analysed before
Participants:	4 to 20
Time:	How long this process will take depends on the workshop purpose. If the workshop aims at general capacity-building of individuals or organizations, you can keep it shorter, deal with less questions. If the workshop however aims at improving capacity and relevance of conflict transformation/peacebuilding interventions, the process might take a whole day. Go with the dynamic of the group. This process has a high learning potential for participants.
Materials:	Flip charts Marker pens Note books and pens Possibly overhead projector and prepared slide
Process:	1. Start by introducing the framework analysis, reflection/sharing/theories of change, action within the four dimensions to participants. Note: If participants are unfamiliar with the concept of theories of change, you will have to introduce the concept to them as well. Click here for more information. Choose an interactive way for doing the presentation, e.g. filling the framework with participants (prepare framework sketch on flipchart or overhead slide). For the analysis section, this provides the opportunity to see what has been achieved throughout the workshop. For the other two sections, encourage the ideas of participants with inquisitive questions. Highlight that these steps could be conducted in a participatory manner, involving the stakeholders of conflict and peace processes in the context. This introduction might take one hour, take it slowly and make sure that participants “own” the framework. Make adaptations if necessary. 2. After the introduction, remind the group of the analysis work that was done before (either a case study or “real” conflict) in order to get participants back into the contents. If this activity comes at the end of the workshop, you will have gone through all the steps and will be able to fill – mentally or actually – the analysis section of the framework for the conflict you have dealt with. Now, the middle section of the framework shall be worked on in plenary. If you work in a mixed group (more than one organization and context), you can focus on the following questions: What needs to be changed (in the four dimensions)? How can positive changes in the dimensions be brought about? Who are potential agents of change? Note: If you work with one organization or context and the purpose of the workshop is to improve conflict transformation/peacebuilding engagement or programming consider also: What can our organisations’ role be? In which dimension(s) can/should we engage? This step could take several hours (especially if you work with groups that want to improve their programming). For mixed groups that should just be introduced to the framework, you can give 90 min. to discussions. The rule is here, however, that you go with the dynamic of the group. If many ideas emerge and discussions are fruitful, give more time. This process has a high learning potential for participants. 3. Now organize participants in groups, if the number of participants allows, form 4 groups. Each group will deal with one dimension and think about: What tools can we use to bring about positive change in this dimension? With which change agent(s) should we work? How could we change attitudes and behaviors and promote healing/resume constructive relations/transform structures and change cultural patterns? Allow groups to discuss these questions for one hour and then present their findings in plenary. Following, think about how action in the four dimensions could be linked up in order to bring about sustainable change. Note: If you work with one organization or context and the purpose of the workshop is to improve conflict transformation/peacebuilding engagement or programming work with these questions in groups, possibly focused on one or several dimensions consider these questions: What is your vision of success? Who of the change agents are we best positioned to work with (what is our target group and why)? What tools can we use to bring about positive change? How can we link with others to bring about sustainable change? (in order to tackle all four dimensions)
Note:
Handout(s):
Source(s):	chachabooth@gmail.com