tel: +385 (0) 463 3330, fax: +385 (0)1 463 3331

mob: +385 (0)91 585 6830

Iblerov trg 9, 10000 Zagreb, Hrvatska

e-mail:

MB 1724169

FINAL REPORT

Exploring the Peace-building Impact of CARE International in NWB:

Project Portfolio Review, 1996-2008

Zagreb, December 2008

Commissioned by: CARE International NWB

Authors: Nataša Škrbić and Marina Škrabalo

Associates: Suzana Kunac and Boško Picula

CONTENTS

1. Purpose and Methods

1. 1. Purpose of the assignment

1.2. Defining peace-building

1.3. Criteria for evaluating community-based peacebuilding

1.4. Overview of Methodology Designed for this Assignment

2. Overview of peace-building contributions of CARE projects

2.1. Overall relevance of reviewed projects to peacebuilding

2.2. Presence of peacebuilding activities in CARE’s projects

2.3. Review of CARE projects in terms of specific PB criteria

3. CARE and peacebuilding – preliminary lessons learned

References and documents:

Annexes (submitted separately):

1. CARE PB Project Review Summary, excel document

2. Analytical matrices for project review (20 documents)

1. Purpose and Methods

1. 1. Purpose of the assignment

The purpose of assignment was to conduct a critical assessment of the peace-building impact of CARE International’s interventions in the NW Balkans during the period 1998-2008., by means of the review CARE project portfolio 1998-2008 (project objectives, scope and key results), based on documentation provided by CARE.

As intended in the TOR, this assessment is supposed to support CARE’s future programming in NWB, i.e. its “contribution towards those initiatives aimed at reintroducing peace-building at the center of the public agenda in the NW Balkans as a condition for ensuring the lasting effects of developmental efforts carried out by a variety of national and international actors. Peace-building is currently being displaced by other issues deemed more important in the ongoing overriding process of EU accession such as state-building, adoption of EU standards, norms and procedures, and the development of economic opportunities, thus ignoring that any achievements in these and other related areas could easily be jeopardized by a deterioration of inter-ethnic relations.” (CARE, TOR:1).

This assessment has been commissioned as part of CARE NWB’s revision of its organizational strategy in the region, beyond the year 2010, which was set as intended time of full exit from the region in October 2005. One of the main conclusions of the revision process that took place over the year 2008 was the importance of strengthening the relevance of various program areas of CARE in NWB to peacebuilding, understood as an overarching goal and the main reason for CARE’s engagement in this region over the past decade, against which CARE’s impact should be measured:

“Independently of whether CARE International finally exits from, or remains (albeit in a different organizational form) in, the Balkans, CARE NW Balkans’ staff strongly believes that a critical and comprehensive analysis of the impact of our different programmatic interventions on peace-building during the period 1998-2008 could represent one of our most important legacies for the advancement of peace in the region. By translating our experiences into knowledge, we could help others learn from those experiences, avoid the negative unintended effects on peace that our work might have had, and build upon its strengths and achievements.” (ibid.)

MAP Savjetovanja was contracted in September 2008 to conduct the peacebuilding project portfolio review related to the CARE’s work in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia as well as at the regional level of North-western Balkans (B-H, Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia). Originally, the assignment envisioned the identification of case studies for in-depth analysis of peacebuilding impact of CARE’s interventions in NWB. Yet, due to changes in the programming and organizational priorities within the mission, as well as the magnitude of the task, in December 2008 MAP Savjetovanja agreed with the CARE’s senior management to limit the scope of the assignment to the preparation of the project portfolio review, based on desk-research, the findings of which are presented in this final report. The main purpose of the report is to provide insights to the CARE program staff into ways of enhancing the peacebuilding relevance of the current and future programs and projects, without necessarily making a substantial shift in the overall design of the portfolio.

1.2. Definingpeace-building

For the purpose of this review, peacebuilding has been defined as a concept used both in policymaking and community-building arenas, referring to a wide array of long-term efforts at all societal levels that aim to transform social relationships, structures and culture in a direction conducive to reduction of theroot causes of social conflicts, such as political and economic inequality, and enhancement of the capacity of individuals, groups and institutions to manage emerging conflicts nonviolently and constructively[1].

This definition resonates with the definition used by development researcher Kenneth Bush, who has designed a useful tool for measuring the impact of peacebuilding in development interventions: “In the broadest sense, peacebuilding refers to those initiatives which foster and support sustainable structures and processes which strengthen the prospects for peaceful coexistence and decrease the likelihood of the outbreak, reoccurrence, or continuation, of violent conflict. This process typically contains both immediate and longer term objectives, for example, humanitarian objectives as well as political, economic, and social objectives. It should be underscored that peacebuilding is not about the imposition of "solutions," it is about the creation of opportunities, and the creation of political, economic, and social spaces, within which indigenous actors can identify, develop, and employ the resources necessary to build a peaceful, prosperous, and just society. Peacebuilding is a two-fold process requiring both the deconstruction of the structures of violence and the construction of the structures of peace“(Bush, 1998:33).

In summary, activities that contribute to peacebuilding are those that:

  • generate social integration, especially in terms of those social groups which have been excluded or marginalized due to conflict or systemic discrimination (which is a form of structural violence)
  • create local spaces for the communication of difference,
  • explicitly address the social and economic needs of the community members, and
  • reconfigure political relations between the grassroots and the middle range leadership,

Hence peacebuilding requires an integrated approach where community mobilization, development interventions, promotion of civic participation, public dialogue and policy advocacy are combined. In its essence, meaningful peacebuilding is a political activity as it questions and reconfigures power relations; a development activity as it addresses the social and economic needs of the post-conflict communities and a communicative activity as it creates spaces and patterns for communication of differences.

There is no one right way of doing peacebuilding, yet its effectiveness is greatly dependent on the agility of local peace constituencies, primarily citizens’ initiatives, media, academia, business sector ready to engage in a dialogue and collaboration across divisions crated or deepened by the conflict and capable of advocating for local and national policies that would promote democratic pluralism and needs-driven, just social and economic development. Peacebuilding through civil society actors (or community-based peacebuilding) puts central focus on the capacity of the civil society to shape and shake the political elites so that the politicians are held accountable for their positive and negative impact on the peacebuilding process.

It should be noted that peacebuilding is relevant to all societies with the experience of protracted social and political conflict or structural violence, reflected in weak democratic governance or harsh economic disparities. In that sense, societies such as Serbia that have not been affected by war on their own territory but which have greatly been affected by social conflict and injustices (inter-ethnic, systemic discrimination of certain social groups or authoritarianism) and which have been engagedin the wars in neighboring territories (meaning that they have experienced refugee crisis and need to deal with war veterans and nationalist belligerent political discourses) are definitely the societies in which peacebuilding processes are highly relevant.

As pointed out by leading American peacebuilding theorist, John-Paul Lederach, criteria for evaluating success of peacebuilding activities need to focus on assessing the quality of change or sustainability of the transformative processes, which take place at different levels of the social system and in different time frames of action (Lederach:1997:142). Hence, effective peacebuilding takes place simultaneously, in the same post-conflict context, at the four levels: (1) personal; (2) relational, (3) structural and (4) cultural (see Table 1). It is the cumulative effect of diverse initiatives aimed at conflict transformation that might make a difference (ibid.). The following table presents the intervention logic at the four levels

Table 1. Peacebuilding interventions at four societal levels (adapted from Lederach, 1997)

Personal level / Relational Level / Structural / Cultural
Minimize destructive effects on personaldevelopment and well-being
Maximize potentials for personal growth(physically, emotionally, and spiritually). / Minimize poor functioning communication;
Maximize mutual understanding andexpression of fears, hopes and goals in terms of affectivity and interdependence. / Explore structural causes of violent conflict – political and economic injustices;
Foster policies that meet basic human needs (substantive justice) and maximizeparticipation in decision-making (proceduraljustice). / Explore those cultural patterns that fosterviolent expressions of conflict;
Explore and promote those culturally specificresources and mechanisms for constructiveconflict management.
Practical example:
Psycho-social support provided to women victims of (war) violence. / Practical example:
Collaboration established by local authorities around economic issues in Srebrenica region. / Practical example:
Advocating and facilitating the establishment of a non-discriminatory, transparent and efficient return and reconstruction program, at the cantonal level. / Practical example:
Experiential education in gender equality and GBV, where links between different forms of violence and oppression are explored as new communication patterns modeled.

1.3. Criteria for evaluating community-based peacebuilding

In line with the working definition of peacebuilding and review of action research Skrabalo has proposed the following criteria for assessing the peacebuilding value of different types of social interventions taking place at the level of local communities (Skrabalo, 2003:6-9). The criteria are grounded in Lederach’s theoretical framework of multi-level conflict transformation taking place at the level of local communities or regions (Lederach, 1997).

1. Impact on Livelihoods/Capacity to Respond to Strategic Needs of the Community

This criterion inquires into ways in which the peacebuilding intervention has contributed to

(1) the alleviation of negative effects of conflict on individual lives and

(2) the creation of new opportunities for community members to meet those pressing needs which they have identified as instrumental to their well being.

The needs primarily include subsistence, physical and psychological security but need tobe defined by community members through a participatory inquiry. If these needs are not addressed, their urgency blocks block the constructive process of desired change. It is particularly important to take into account the dynamics of social exclusion and ask questions about the involvement of and relevance of intervention to the most vulnerable and marginal groups in the community.

2. Impact on Social Integration/Relationships/Mobilization of Peace Constituents

This is a central criterion for evaluating the transformative potential of peacebuilding, since horizontal and vertical reconfiguration of relationships is the main way of creating or enlarging social space for reconciliation between conflicting social groups. According to peacebuilding researcher and practitioner Paul Stubbs, there are two critical aspects of social integration in the Croatian and B-H setting – integration of survivors of war-related forced migrations (refugees, displaced, returnees) in the local community; and identification and support for the emergence of ‘alternative community leaders’ and ‘new civil society’ who act as peace constituents that subtly „undercut the dominant political culture of polarization and division”, as described by Shorr and Stubbs in the case study of the UNOV project in the Bosniak/Croat divided town of Gornji Vakuf/Uskoplje, Central Bosnia. This is the centerpiece of the counter-hegemonic impact of grassroots peacebuilding practice, as it can give rise to the recomposition of local political structures (Stubbs,1996:36).

This criterion corresponds to the concept of social capital, namely the quality of social ties and citizens' engagement in matters of common concern, understood as the prerequisites of democratic order, social and political stability, social and economic development. The function of social capital in the generation and transformation of violent conflicts is viewed within the broader concept of social cohesion, featured by the absence of latent, polarizing social conflicts caused by class, racial, ethnic and political inequalities, the presence of strong horizontal and vertical social ties and the function of institutions for conflict management, including autonomous judiciary,m democratic government structures and independent media (Colletta and Cullen, 2000).

Among the three typesof social ties considered relevant for the creation of social capital[2], bridging ties are particularly valuable for restoring trust at the level of communities divided by the war. While bonding ties are often a powerful tool for violence and exclusion, they are at the same time instrumental for mobilizing the social groups marginalized by the war to engage in self-support activities and in advocacy for their rights. Linking ties are a prerequisite for enhancing citizens’ engagement in political processes, aimed at the introduction of more just, inclusive and effective policies supportive of peacebuilding and the accountability of government institutions (ibid.).

In examining the effects of social integration on a local community, it is important to include effects of peacebuilding practice on its own organizers, who are themselves at some level, “partial-insiders”, embedded in the local culture, whose individual and collective identities are shaped by the local culture, experience of conflict as well as their peacebuilding practice. These actors have their own personal and professional social networks in the communities where they act or in the broader system they seek to transform. Therefore, the evaluation of impact of peacebuilding practice on reconfigurations of their relationships and identities of its actors is an initial step in exploring its impact on social integration among other peace constituents, community and the broader social system of which it is a part.

3. Impact on local culture of peacebuilding and conflict

This criterion is based on the discussion of the role of culture in peacebuilding, examining ways in which a peacebuilding intervention has built its “theory of practice” on the understanding of the local cultural model, especially those elements of it that (1) perpetuate conflict and (2) are particularly conducive to reconciliation. Further, it would examine whether the cultural model that the peacebuilding practice projects onto the community and thus influences the local culture contributes to sustained reconciliation. There is little local research specifically on the cultural aspects of peacebuilding practices in the post- Yugoslav region so there is a vast area for exploring applicability and refinement of this criterion.

4. Impact on Broader System and Long-Term Social Change

This criterion examines effects of a specific peacebuilding practice in a local community setting on “strategic sub-systems” – key local institutions and networks and further effects on the broader social structures, such as national institutions, organizations, networks etc. Lederach proposes three points of inquiry - level of articulation and adequacy of vision of desired change; adequate identification of those networks and institutions (sub-systems) with the greatest potential and significance for change and community feedback on the relevance and quality of intended changes. Stubbs emphasizes the need to track effects of innovative social practices initiated by peacebuilding interventions, such as volunteer-based provision of social services, establishment of community education or mediation committees, or new community based organizations, on the broader social (and political) infrastructure, rather than creating parallel, substitute or disconnected service. “The question should be focused in terms of what legacy will be left when the project ends” (Stubbs, 1996:22).

5. Transformative Capacity of the Organizational Structure for Peacebuilding

Since peacebuilding interventions take organizational forms, it is important to examine whether these organizational structures’ transformative potential, i.e. create social space for reconciliation, foster horizontal and vertical social integration, reconstruct social meanings through a process of communicative action (expression of different truths and dialogue on normative bases for common practice, with enough space for divergence and diversity); respect local organizational cultures and stimulate critical approach to cultural change and innovation etc. To put it in the language of peace activism – this criterion checks whether peacebuilding projects “walk the talk”, without implying that there are any organizational forms or processes which are more “true” to peacebuilding than others, especially given the importance of the cultural context.

As Stubbs has pointed out, (Stubbs, 2006), international and local nongovernmental organizations engaged in postwar relief and development in the post-Yugoslav war stricken countries, frequently can have a significant effect on local economies - as they act as often principal employers offering salaries far higher than in state institutions for social service provision; and their management systems and organizational structures reproduce those of Western European or US based NGOs and even business organizations. The impact of these new organizational structures on the local environment and their actual contribution to peacebuilding is a contested and inadequately explored issue.

6. Impact on Peacebuilding Practices Elsewhere

Exchange of experiences and solidarity between localized peacebuilding practices, which operate in a particular, dynamic cultural, social, political contexts featured by protracted conflict is a necessary prerequisite for the creation of local hegemonies conducive of sustained reconciliation, that is the impact of accumulated localized peacebuilding practices on the broader system, such as a national political space or global structures for peacebuilding and international relations. For these reasons, an additional sub-criterion is suggested which would examine the transfers of knowledge, experience and other resources between different local peacebuilding practices and specifically examine whether a given peacebuilding project has a commitment and capacity to engage in such networking