Since November 1999, 120 specially trained "peace workers" belonging to the newly founded Civil Peace Service (ZFD) have been sent to Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Balkans to contribute to the prevention or de-escalation of violence. The experts work in projects such as resolution of land conflicts, human rights, dialogue fora, reintegration of refugees and former soldiers, trauma work, human security and media and cultural work. The German government has financed ZFD projects until now with EUR 44 million. This article draws a first balance of what has been achieved so far.
As laid down in the framework concept of the ZFD, agreed between the Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) - which has ultimate responsibility for this programme - and the implementing organisations in June 1999, the ZFD projects aim at making an active contribution to dismantling the structural causes of conflicts and building up mechanisms for non-violent conflict resolution in the following areas:
- strengthening of peace potentials;
- confidence-building between parties to conflicts;
- creating public awareness on peace activities in the media;
- overcoming of prejudices and images of the enemy (through, inter alia, peace education);
- observance and promotion of human rights;
- reconstruction (including municipal tasks); and
- reconciliation work.
The Civil Peace Service is thus a voluntary service of women and men with experience of life and various professions who at the wish of local partners in development cooperation help to overcome the causes of hate and violence (which, despite overlapping in many cases, do not necessarily match the causes of poverty). The aim is to reduce or even avoid the use of violence in resolving conflicts. The ZFD implementing organisations have since November 1999 seconded experts to partner organisations on the basis of a federal act called The Act on Development Workers. These volunteers, sent to work in projects for two to three years, are given individual training which also strengthens their competence in civil conflict resolution. Most of the projects are active in post-conflict peace-building, and about one-quarter of them in crisis prevention. This breakdown is approximate, because defining the exact borderlines between the two phases is a matter of fine interpretation. As a rule, ZFD cooperation is not provided for during the "hot" phases of civil wars or massive political violence.
An initial assessment of the Civil Peace Service indicates five points which should also be considered in the further development of this instrument:
1. Locating Civil Peace Service in the wider framework of development cooperation was the right decision
At the outset, the organisations charged with implementing the ZFD - especially the peace organisations - had very different ideas about the sector in which it ZFD should be active. Limiting ZFD to development cooperation was seen as problematical. Even the Coalition Agreement of the 'Red-Green’ Federal government of October 1998 still referred to the ZFD under the heading 'OSCE’ (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe). This indicates the government’s original intention to assign the ZFD to the Foreign Office and organise it as an instrument for the recruiting and care of civil personnel in OSCE (or even UN) missions. However, assigning the ZFD to development cooperation has turned out to be the right decision for three reasons. First, the principles of development cooperation such as promotion of self-help, subsidiarity, sustainability and partner orientation (on-site promotion of the activities and goals of local partners) are also important principles of Civil Peace Service work. Thus both project types are compatible with each other. Second, development cooperation recognises the need for long-term projects - as it also arises in, for example, ZFD reconciliation projects. Development cooperation also has developed the appropriate instruments and processes for such timeframes, in marked contrast to short-term operations of up to six months in the context of international or emergency aid missions. Third, "customary" development cooperation works in areas that give practical support to the sustainable impact of ZFD measures. When, for instance, as part of its ZFD engagement the German Development Service (DED) promotes the peaceful settlement of conflicts over land in Guatemala or Bolivia, the chances of these measures achieving sustainability increase if the new owners of the land are granted small-scale loans for cultivating their land and advanced training in marketing their products. Development cooperation organisations in particular have a great number of instruments and processes that are necessary for supporting ZFD efforts towards peace and thus, in the final analysis, for their sustainability. Therefore the Federal government took the right decision to locate the ZFD in development cooperation.
2. The Civil Peace Service adds something new to development cooperation
Critics of the Civil Peace Service allege that it has brought nothing new to the instruments of development cooperation. This argument is demonstrably wrong. The Federal Government, in fact, called on the state-recognised seconding services precisely because, among other things, these services - such as the DED in the sector of community work and promotion of municipal administration - had had previous experience in conflict resolution. Indeed, due to the Civil Peace Service other areas have been upgraded or even incorporated in the work of the DED, such as:
- explicit focus on conflict resolution and prevention of violence as the central object (rather than environment) of a project with its own goals and results, and results indicators differing from those in previous development cooperation;
- stronger intervention in socio-political conflicts, which previously tended to be avoided (socio-political conflicts as a project object);
- New knowledge of the communication and behaviour methods and skills of civil conflict resolution;
- New analysing skills in recognising the potential for peace and conflict and the impact of development cooperation projects on conflicts (Peace and Conflict Impact Assessment);
- Increased attention to the non-material consequences of experiencing violence: trauma, shame, guilt, desire for revenge, prejudices, hate propaganda and images of the enemy;
- New focus on reconciliation between former 'perpetrators’ and 'victims’ in the reintegration of ex-combatants (rebels, soldiers) and refugees (victim-offender-schemes);
- Increased promotion of peace education and/or means of communication (including the media), which have a de-escalating effect and promote non-violent transformation of conflicts; and
- New skills that help to deal better with stress (such as by supervision) and security training in project areas where conflicts are taking place.
- Thanks to the Civil Peace Service these areas and issues have become a focus of development cooperation.
3. Greater planning security and a more flexible deployment of the Civil Peace Service are necessary
The Civil Peace Service’s claim to be able to react to crises in partner countries was certainly a weighty argument in the political sphere in that it makes sense to prevent violence breaking out (crisis prevention) instead of having to deal with the consequences of violence. But the Civil Peace Service cannot come anywhere near making good its claim if, as to date, at least two years pass by from the first contact between the local partner organisation and the ZFD implementing organisations and the time the "peace worker" arrives on-site. Therefore, the Civil Peace Service instrument must be able to be deployed faster and more flexibly than to date. On the one hand, that means accelerating the appraisal of project applications and, on the other hand, that funds can be used more flexibly by means of general approvals. Otherwise, the question of whether the Civil Peace Service could and should be deployed more in post-conflict peace-building rather than in crisis prevention should be reviewed again.
Despite the call for the ZFD implementing organisations to be able to react faster to crises in partner countries, this should not give the impression that the Civil Peace Service is a kind of 'Rapid Intervention Force’ for peace. On the contrary, the ZFD is an instrument aimed at having an effect upon structures, behaviour patterns and institutions. Therefore it can develop its impact only in the medium to long term. Correspondingly, the timeframes of approvals of ZFD projects, currently two to three years, should be more than doubled.
The framework conditions imposed by conflicts can change - sometimes quite rapidly. As a result the information given in project applications is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, it is problematical to issue an approval on the basis of out-of-date project data. The ZFD implementing organisations must even more than before get around to preliminary talks with each other and with the Federal Government on the alignment and assignment of the ZFD: In which countries should it be deployed, which target groups should be given particular support, which areas of activity appear to be most suited to the ZFD? These preliminary talks must be based on participation of the local partners at the invitation of the implementing organisations. Those talks and commitments restrict, of course, the autonomy of all participating organisations in the common effort.
4. The Civil Peace Service needs greater networking
Its framework concept defines the Civil Peace Service as an instrument "in which government and non-governmental implementing organisations cooperate". While the plurality of the ZFD organisations is celebrated as a sign of diversity, it also means the organisations should reach agreement with each other in order to prevent diversity becoming "anything goes". Such agreements should involve the standards in preparing "peace workers" for overseas service (what basic competencies do all of them have - regardless of which organisation qualifies or prepares them - before their departure?), as well as those for project planning and monitoring and evaluation of the instruments employed. Another question is the selection of countries and partners: which countries should be give greater consideration? For all these questions there still are no sufficient commitments between the implementing organisations on the one hand, and between the organisations and the Federal Government on the other. However, a common understanding of the criteria determining who should work where as part of the ZFD is an important basis for speedy strategic planning by the implementing organisations.
Government and non-governmental actors are dependent upon each other in crisis prevention and promotion of peace in development cooperation - and thus also in the ZFD. Without influencing the political framework of the host countries, such as by granting loans, inter-government negotiations or diplomacy (so-called Track 1), the efforts at local or regional level (so-called Track 2) remain very limited in their potential effective reach. If, on the other hand, peace does not "grow from within and below", crisis prevention and promotion of peace at the diplomatic level will not be sustainable. In addition, there is a need for intervention at various social levels, especially by non-governmental actors, which also must be agreed among them. Therefore the ZFD needs better networking between the partner organisations on-site and between the donors and the ZDF implementing organisations. A first step could be a body in which the BMZ, the Foreign Office and the ZFD organisations meet annually or half-yearly to discuss strategic focal points for ZFD activities. The body itself would be an example of purposeful coherence and agreement among the participants in the Civil Peace Service.
5. Civil Peace Service projects have not yet reached a critical mass
From the DED point of view, the practice in ZFD projects of a German/EU "peace worker" cooperating with a local expert has proved successful. Frequently, the German expert brings an outside view to a project and thus a fresh perspective, while the local expert contributes the cultural background and understanding (and often the necessary knowledge of the local language) for the local circumstances in a conflict situation. Further, it does not make sense that only a few or even single "peace workers" are working at certain locations. Rather, the ZFD projects in certain countries should be bundled where they are needed and can generate synergies with other development cooperation sectors and foreign policy. This expansion of the Civil Peace Service should be enabled by topping up its present budget of EUR 10 million per year to 20-25 million. The present Federal Government’s budget proposal of EUR13 million per year for the ZFD is a step in the right direction.
The Civil Peace Service is a demanding instrument of civil crisis prevention in the partner countries and thus is more than a volunteer service as an alternative to military service (as in France), or a personnel recruiting instrument (as in Norway). It is a stand-alone project type in development cooperation. In November 2001 the DED was invited to a conference in London organised by Peaceworkers UK, International Alert and Saferworld. This conference advocated the establishment of a Germany type Civil Peace Service with the aid of a policy paper for House of Commons. Who would have ventured to predict five to ten years ago that Germany would play such a trailblazing role in the civil crisis prevention sector?
