Submission to DfID's new Conflict Policy Paper

Question 1: What kind of conflict prevention outcomes should DfID aspire to?

We encourage DfID to make long-term reconciliation between warring communities a high priority. We consider the best response to endemic and violent conflict is patient work with partner governments and civil society to create 'ceasefires and settlements that will stick'. This requires a gradual consolidation of longer-term peace and cooperation. Whereas Truth and Reconciliation Commissions in Bosnia/ Croatia have often failed to make progress at a national level, small NGO linked projects, such as IZMIR in Croatia have facilitated inter-community reconciliation. In achieving the goal of long-term reconciliation we encourage DfID to support work at a grass roots level.      

Question 4: how should we work better with civil society?

NGOs and civil society institutions need greater support in their work of building more accountable governance as a means of preventing conflict. Further support should be given to NGO projects that promote nonviolent processes of conflict transformation and protect civilians from human rights abuses in conflict areas. The Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel[1]is an example of such an NGO initiative offering protection to civilians, preventing human rights abuses and violence by providing a civilian presence and monitoring in a conflict zone.

Investment in education that encourages citizens to find peaceful solutions to violent conflict should be a priority. In situations of structural violence, as in many parts of South Asia, there is a rising anger among young men who perceive that the only way out of their situation is to take up weapons.  The Naxalite movement in India, the Maoist rebellion in Nepal, and the recruitment of young people into the army and LTTE in Sri Lanka are examples. These young men need to learn of nonviolent alternatives. The people's movement in India, Ekta Parishad, is working successfully in Bihar, Oroissa and Chhattisgarh to train young people in using dialogue and advocacy in land, water and forest rights and to help them build alternative livelihoods. Such non-state movements need support, and the capacity to extend their vision into the wider South Asia region, a task that has begun in the South Asia Peace Alliance.

Local informal initiatives for enabling peace need to be identified and protected, and given political space. An example from Uganda is the many discreet channels of communication between those in the Lord's Resistance Army and their families, which are persuasive in encouraging escape, but heavily policed and circumscribed by the military as 'collaboration.'

Forums for community groups and NGOs to enable shared solutions are critical, as is funding to extend the capacity of NGOs to allow them to prioritise sharing, learning and networking.  Support for locally based advocacy and for effective links between local groups and policy makers, when done well, can provide critical foundations for policy decisions, and bolster local engagement. However, advocacy remains an 'add-on' to the majority of local groups and genuine engagement is usually hampered by other resource demands.  The coalition Civil Society Organisations for Peace in Northern Uganda, funded by DfID, has therefore depended for its momentum on a mobile and well-resourced minority of its membership. There is a need for innovative methods of engaging those who are geographically distant, without email access and with conflicting priorities.

Question 5: How should we work better across the international system?

We see the reduction of armed violence as a crucial development priority.We support the development of initiatives such as the Organisationfor Economic Cooperation and Development and Development Assistance Committee guidelines on mainstreaming small arms and mine action programs in development assistance. DfID should encourage greater local consultation, and a more nuanced use of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers and Poverty Reduction Growth Facilities both at the multilateral level and in the individual countries. We support DfID's current approach to conditionality as likely to result in ownership of economic policies in recipient countries. We would welcome greater co-operation and joined up planning between principle multilateral agencies and nation states. For example there is room for expansion of the use of the Poverty Social Impact Analysis in the IMF, as well as better donor co-ordination.

It is often difficult for international donors to know whether responses to consultations are representative of a genuine consensus across all the main sections of society in any country. We encourage DfID and other international agencies to develop informal links with local NGOs. Such links would, include church groups and faith organisations so as to ensure that the broadest possible spectrum of society participates in building the path to a peaceful future.   

Question 6: How can DfID better engage with non-state actors that are party to conflict?

Our experience in South Asia, points to the need for regions to develop local networks of conciliation and resource people. Impartial and experienced Third Party conciliators working as small cross-cultural teams can develop the capacity to be impartial conciliators and maybe more effective than international intervention in addressing a region's violent conflicts. An example of such a resource South Asia Peace Alliance that has contributed to the peace process in Nepal. [2]

Question 9: Do you know of specific examples where you think DfID's work on conflict has been particularly effective or ineffective?

We support DfID's work with the MOD in recent post-conflict peace-building in Bosnia; relief efforts during Rwanda's refugee crisis; local-level peacebuilding in Uganda and monitoring of demobilization and decommissioning in El Salvador. We consider that the following are all positive examples of multilateral projects addressing the prevention of violent conflict: UNAMIR's original deployment in Rwanda; protection of humanitarian relief in Bosnia; peacekeeping in Cambodia; UN and OSCE presence in Estonia and Latvia; EU and Council of Europe participation in Slovakia. 

We are concerned that DfID's recent work in the Occupied Palestinian Territories has, at times, been counterproductive.  In March 2006 DfID stopped funding the Palestinian Authority and began a temporary international mechanism (TIM) 'for funding Palestinian basic needs'.[3]The TIM channels funding through the office of the Palestinian President, who is the leader of the Palestinian political party involved in a political struggle with Hamas. In this way, aid money becomes involved in an internal political struggle increasing the risks for a Palestinian civil war between the armed groups of the two main political parties. According to the International Crisis Group, 'in so doing, they have chosen to bolster one Palestinian factionagainst the other, thus exacerbating internal strife'[4].

Question 11: What are the top three commitments that DfID make?

• The reduction of armed violence - including a focus in post-conflict situations on factors that help to reduce the risk of further violence such as legislation on guns and security sector reform.  
• Ensuring that local initiatives work consistently with national governments and with regional organizations like the African Union.
• Commitment to the most vulnerable, including work to ensure that children and young men and women (e.g. child soldiers) who have been victims of violence do not become its perpetrators.

Question 13: In terms of DfID's approach to conflict, what would you like more clarity on?

What are the criteria for deciding whether to support conflict prevention projects?

Michael Bartlet, Parliamentary Liaison Secretary
19 October 2006

[1]Supported by world Council of Churches

[2]Further information from Stuart Morton, Quaker Peace & Social Witness, London.

[3]DfID Palestinian Programme Interim Update, September 2006.

[4]ICG media release, 13.6.06, Palestinians, Israel and the Quartet: Pulling back from the brink.