Training is a process by which
one acquires new skills or further develops existing
ones. In contrast to other, more academic types
of learning, training describes "learning
formats leading to changed behaviours in action
situations" (George Lakey).[2]
There are many types of training
with potential relevance to NP. There are conflict
resolution trainings, mediation trainings of
different sorts, trainings in nonviolent communication,
training against prejudice and racist attitudes,
training for empowerment, trainings for specific
tasks like election monitoring, nonviolent actions trainings, trainings
in dealing with direct violence and many more.
For each of these categories of trainings there
are trainings for trainers, sometimes rather
loosely organised weeks, sometimes certified
programs running over several years.
And as varied are the target
groups for trainings: ranging from pre-school
children to pupils, potentially violent youth,
prison inmates to lawyers, social workers, teachers,
police, soldiers and all the other professional
groups one can imagine.
Training for volunteers/staff
preparing to work in civilian missions of conflict
transformation may include different elements.
They could include a number of different training
elements, including some sort of basic training,
trainings related to the specific roles which
people may be called upon to undertake (also
called function-specific or task-specific training/preparation,
and preparations for a specific deployment (also
called mission-specific training).[3] This
last type of training may be more focussed on
relevant issues for that deployment, as well
as including information on the sending organisation,
country, conflict and often intensive language
training.
In addition to these three kinds
of pre-mission training, there can also be on-going
trainings that may not be directly related to
preparation for deployment but may be more aimed
at developing and improving one's skills generally.
There is also in many cases an on-going programme
of trainings in the field, during deployment,
in order to constantly improve and expand skills
relevant to the deployment.
Generally, there are several
approaches to training, and it is important to
be aware of them when comparing goals, programs
and contents of trainings. There is a big difference
in approach between the nonviolence trainers,
who focus more on personal development and inter-personal
dynamics, and other approaches which focus more
on skills, techniques or analysis of particular
conflict situations.
Another major difference among nonviolence trainers is between
Western and Gandhian styles. In a nutshell,
the difference may be that the Gandhian style
looks at the participants as whole beings who
participate in the training with her/his whole
personality, undergoing a longer-term transformation
and in addition acquiring a variety of skills.
Trainers and training institutions on the African
and South American continent have developed yet
other approaches, e.g. trying to refer to traditional
ways of conflict resolution, or being inspired
by the teachings of the Theology of the Oppressed.
Generally, trainings in the Southern Hemisphere
tend to concentrate more on empowerment of the
oppressed. The issue of intervention, and of
non-partisanship does usually not play a role.[4]
The Western style often is more
skill-oriented, though training institutions
vary very much in how much emphasis for example
they lay on the philosophy of nonviolence,
and/or on influencing personality traits etc.
In the extreme, the Western thesis is that personal
or social competences cannot be learned - a view
taken e.g. by the development services in the
German debate on training for Civil Peace Service[5],
while the Gandhian is that everyone can change,
no matter at what age she or he starts.[6]
As will be described more in
detail in the next chapter, some organisations
forego everything but specific mission-preparation.
Generally it seems that most nonviolent and other intervenors described
in Chapter 2 of this study prepare their staff/volunteers
with training courses between one and three weeks[7].
This is or has been the case for PBI, Witness
for Peace, Michigan Peace Teams, and most of
the Civil Peace Service Programs described in
Chapter 2 of this research, as well as the larger
scale training programmes now preparing civilians
for deployment with the OSCE and the UN. There
are a few organisations that at least in the
past have offered almost no training or preparation
(for example OSCE[8] in
the past or PBI at the very beginning).
The only exception I have encountered
of organisations providing longer preparation
for their own staff are some development services
that prepare their personnel for a duration of
up to almost one year[9],
including intensive language studies. These preparations
often are tailored to the individual needs of
each participant.
The other trainings that are
longer then 3 weeks (apart from the more academic
trainings run by various universities, etc) are
provided by organisations that have specialised
on training, accepting individual participants
from different projects. Project organisations
may either send their staff to such courses (as
in the model of the German CPS), or recruit their
volunteers/staff from the participants of the
courses.[10] To
mention just a few of them in Europe: Responding
to Conflict in Woodbrooke with
3 month courses once a year that take place since
1991, "Working Group Qualification for Civil
Conflict Resolution/Civil Peace Service" in
Germany with 4-5 month courses that take place
twice a year since 1997, International Peacekeeping
Courses in Stadtschlaining/Austria
of 2 plus 2 weeks (2 weeks basic, 2 weeks specialisation)
organised three times a year since 1993.
In the Netherlands, France and Germany there are now training courses organised
within the framework of the respective Civil
Peace Services there. In the Netherlands there is a course of 4 weeks, in France there
is a 3-module training of 1-2 weeks per module
stretching over the period of one year, and in Germany there is a 4 month course hold en bloc.
All three courses have problems with finding
enough participants wanting to prepare themselves
for work abroad.[11] Most
established sending organisations (including
EIRENE, other development organisations and PBI)
have not made much use of these courses. In the Netherlands the Dutch project managed to get the Military
interested in the course, while in France and Germany the governmental side has set up other
courses for their people.
In North America longer-term
trainings are offered mainly by colleges/universities
like Eastern Mennonite University, the Canadian
Lester B. Pearson Peacekeeping Institute; there
are fewer free-lance training institutions than
in Europe (: (George Lakey's institute
in Philadelphia being one).
A very few organisations have
placed at least part of their training in the
country, as the very beginning of the work. Witness
for Peace is one of them: They organised a training
in the home country, and then a 3-week training
in the country where the volunteers visited places, liased with families and checked
in daily with the trainers.[12]
Sometimes, mission-specific training
(preparation) is separated from general training,
while other organisations (e.g. the smaller peace
teams) tend to lump the two together. If there
is special preparation, it usually includes information
on country, culture and conflict, sometimes language
training. Some organisations and missions (e.g.
EMPSA/South Africa) have organised the preparation
in the field, while others prefer to do it before
departure to the field (German development services).
Some organisations combine assessment
with training, for example Peace Brigades International.
At the end of their trainings, there is a self-evaluation
of the participants as well as an evaluation
by the trainers, ending up in a recommendation
to the applicants if they should become volunteers
with PBI or not. Balkan Peace Team has experimented
with the same form but gave it up after two years
because it seemed to BPT that the knowledge of
being assessed weighed too heavily on the participants,
and prevented them from being open to learn.
The International Committee of
the Red Cross (ICRC) and the International Federation
of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies[13] have
introduced one-week (5-6 days) Basic Training
Courses that since 1993 are organised by all
National Red Cross Societies. These courses are
intended to introduce new staff to the Red
Cross/Red Crescent organisation, and to prepare them for fulfilling
their role as delegates in the field. The courses
serve also to evaluate the participants, and
to come to recommendations about possible future
positions. Before eventual departure to the field,
the new staff members undergo additional preparation
at the ICRC headquarters in Geneva. [14]
The OSCE has recently begun to
get interested in training for their civilian
personnel. Because it had enormous problems finding
a sufficient number of civilian verifiers at
short notice for the Kosovo Verification Mission
(see Chapter 2.4), the REACT (Rapid Expert Assistance
and Co-operation Teams) program has been started
in 2000/2001. REACT establishes a matrix of personnel
requirements, unified recruitment procedures,
and pre-mission training standards. Some countries
have started to organise courses for future OSCE
personnel, e.g. the German Foreign Ministry developed
a 2-week training, and institutions in Austria and Switzerland started giving training for OSCE personnel
(see below).
Regarding military peacekeeping,
there is a big difference between the sending
countries whether and how much special training
soldiers receive for peacekeeping missions. If
there is training, it is usually one or two weeks,
organised on a national basis, although some
of the trainings are open to participants from
other countries. Some countries have established
training institutions specialising in peacekeeping,
for example the Lester B. Pearson Peacekeeping
Institute in Canada, the School for Peacekeeping
Missions at the Netherlands Manoeuvre Training
Centre, the Cairo Center for Training on Conflict
Resolution and Peacekeeping in Africa, and the
Peace Training Centre in Turkey. In other countries,
military academies or comparable institutions
take care of this training, e.g. the US School
of the Americas or the Swedish National Defence College. Some national militaries have their soldiers
come together for a few week special training
before sending them abroad, giving them some
basic information on the country and the mission
before departure. Others may have no special
preparation at all. [15]
Mission preparation has been a special problem
for those organisations that do not train their
own participants but send their people to training
institutions (like IPT/Stadtschlaining,
German CPS etc.). These training institutions
usually are unable to provide mission oriented
preparation because they have in each course
people training for different missions. Truger (1995)
already stresses the importance of that preparation
but IPT had not seen itself as the place to set
up such preparation.[16] The
International Trainings of the German Kurve Wustrow have
a few times given the possibility to projects
like BPT of attaching 2-3 special days to the
general training. German CPS had originally expected
the sending organisations to organise two weeks
of mission preparation after the end of the course,
but this has not been realised so far.
Information on approach and field
policies of the sending organisation may either
be included in the training - usually if it is
a training set up by one sending organisation
for its own staff, or in the preparation - especially
if the staff attended trainings open to future
participants in different missions.
To summarise, there are basically
the following different options available for
organisations sending personnel to conflict intervention
missions:
They may organise a training
of their own (examples: Peace Brigades International,
Witness for Peace, Austrian Peace Services)
Given the rather small number of volunteers needed
each year, it usually means that there are only one
or two trainings per year, and that again means that
there are longer waiting periods for applicants until
they can attend and complete their training. But the
sending organisations can fix the dates to meet their
needs.
They may send their personnel
to trainings offered by training institutions
(examples: German Civil Peace Service, UN and
OSCE, sending their personnel to institutions
like Stadschlaining,
Swiss Peace Foundation or Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna in
Pisa, Italy, as well as NGOs sending their personnel
to institutions like Responding to Conflict/England
or Kurve Wustrow/Germany)
In that case the sending organisations do not have
to invest time and energy into the courses, but
on the other hand are dependent on the dates of
the courses which they cannot influence. In the
German CPS there are a few examples of organisations
which decided not to send an applicant to the course
rather than wait for several months for the course
to start.
The training institutions, on the other hand, have
the problem of finding enough participants for
their courses, especially the longer-term courses.
The 4-month German CPS course has never managed
to fill its courses, and a comparable middle-term
program organised by an Ecumenical organisation
has been reduced in favour of part-time courses
people can attend while working in their normal
profession. Responding to Conflict allows for participation
of only part of the program at one time. As mentioned
above, also the projects in France and
the Netherlands have had problems with filling their courses
with appropriate participants.
Kurve Wustrow once
tried as an experiment combining the training
for three peace team organisations in a European
Volunteer Training: In January 1996 volunteers
from Peace Brigades International interested
in going to Sri
Lanka,
from Balkan Peace Team preparing for work in Croatia or Serbia, and Christian Peace Service came together
for two weeks.
They may organise a preparation
tailored to fill the gaps each individual staff
person newly hired still has (example: German
development services).
They may hire only staff who
are sufficiently qualified, e.g. by having attended
courses of training institutions at their own
expense. (This has been at least in the past
the policy of OSCE and often also UNV).
Besides trainings and preparations,
there may be five other related kinds of events
(see also Chapter 6, Personnel):
Orientation weekends like PBI
runs , and which may already serve to pre-select
applicants besides informing potential volunteers
about the work of the organisation.
Assessments that sometimes combine
some training elements with their basic objective
of choosing future volunteers (e.g. Balkan Peace
Team)[17]
Specialisation courses, e.g.
in election monitoring or in mediation that people
might attend before going to the field, or after
having been to the field for some time already.
Reflection, perhaps combined
with further training during the mission.
When BPT had more then one team in the field, the
teams used to meet twice a year to discuss and
compare their experience, and sometimes an external
trainer was present to work with the team.
The majority of the personnel sent out under the
German CPS scheme meets once a year at something
called Practice Reflection Seminar, a meeting that
is led by two trainers of the 4-month course plus
one or two externals.
Also the evaluation of the International Training
of the Kurve Wustrow emphasised
the use training has for participants with long-term
practical experience. Kübler states: "There
is a big need for this kind of follow up training
for people already working."[18]
Debriefing meetings after the
end of the deployment
While most organisations emphasise the importance
of such debriefings, it seems that in reality it
is often handled in a rather informal way - a meeting
with a rep of the organisation (BPT) or a visit
in the office. Only some volunteer and development
services seem to set up regular debriefing weekends.[19]
In the ideal case, there is training
accompanying a volunteer from the time of her/his
application to the end of her/his work for the
organisation.
5.3.1 Goals and curricula
The general goal of those small
and large-scale intervenors who
organise their own training is to train and prepare
their staff/volunteers in a way that they are
capable of doing their job. [20] That
means that usually training and mission preparation
elements are mixed; in some cases preparation
might loom higher than basic training. Humanitarian
organisations like ICRC might concentrate solely
on introduction to their mandate/goals, and mission
preparation.
Kurt Südmersen,
one of the creators of the CPS curriculum, has
defined five fields of competence generally important
for training:
Competence to de-escalate violence
and contribute to constructively dealing with
conflict in those conflicts an individual is
involved in (change of social behaviour);
Competence to co-operate in groups
in such a way that the skills of all participants
are used in an optimal way to work on solving
problems and dealing with conflicts;
Competence to recognise and analyse
conflicts;
Competence to know standardised
methods of conflict transformation, and choosing
the right ones for the conflict in question;
Competence to intervene in conflicts
on the private, social and professional level.
While the goals and the curricula
developed to meet the goals may vary slightly,
it seems to me that most of them reflect these
qualification needs, only putting the emphasis
perhaps on different aspects. As mentioned above,
one of the differences is the question whether
preparation for concrete deployment is part of
the training, or if the training is rather open/basic
or orienting people for work with different organisations.
To give some examples, I have
compared the goals of five different trainings
in this category, three open and two organisation-specific[22].
Narayan Desai, the head of the Vedchhi "Institute
for Total Revolution" formulated already
in the 1960s the below quoted four objectives
for training in non-violence.
Witness for Peace is one of the
organisations combining training and preparation.
They describe in their Manual six goals for the
training they gave their volunteers who prepared
to go to Nicaragua in
the 1980s[24]:
The four-month courses of the
German CPS aim at providing a general training
in skills needed for Civil Peace Service, but
have tried to include some elements of mission
preparation whenever possible. They distinguish
seven general objectives[25]:
The (international) trainings
of the German centre "Kurve Wustrow" have
been developed in close co-operation with the Nonviolence Education
and Training Project of the International Fellowship
of Reconciliation. They define five central goals,
and seven aims of the training. The general goals
were:
"To build on long term experiences
of Peace Teams;
To anchor nonviolence as
a liberating force;
To stimulate creativity in dealing
with new situations;
To work closely with the needs
and expertise of the participants;
To empower participants to reflect
on their own situation, to identify needs and
to adjust the training accordingly."[26]
The Basic Courses of the Red
Cross/Red Crescent Societies are intended to
introduce new staff to future work as delegates
in the field, as well as to assess their qualifications
and skills (see Section 7.2).[27] They
do not specifically deal with conflict, or conflict
intervention.
The comparison shows clearly
the different emphasis that is laid on personal
growth and nonviolence on
the one hand, and teaching participants specific
skills and specific knowledge on the other.
Table 5.1 Comparison of Goals
defined by different nonviolent training
organisations, compared with goals of basic training
of ICRC
|
Institute for Total Revolution
(1965)
|
CPS Course Germany (AG
Q) (2000)
|
Kurve Wustrow; International
Training (1998)
|
Witness for Peace
(1985)
|
ICRC Basic Training Course
(2000)
|
|
To help them develop attitudes
leading towards non-violence
|
Personal growth
|
To assist participants
in the development of a deeper awareness
of their personal strengths, weaknesses
and priorities in their work
|
|
|
|
To enable participants
to reach a deeper understanding of non-violence;
|
To value attitudes and
methods and to practice it consciously
(nonviolence)
|
To nurture a deeper understanding
of nonviolence in our attitudes,
thinking and practice
|
|
|
| |
To contribute to peace
creating and promoting structures and ways
of communicating / ”peace building” (conflict
transformation)
|
To gain mutual understanding
and develop a feeling of solidarity and
empowerment
|
A sense of unity and with
a prayerful, nonviolent spirit
|
|
| |
To analyse, understand
and work on conflict (analysis);
To understand developments
of the society / social causes and to work
on them (analysis)
|
|
|
|
| |
|
To develop skills in relation
to nonviolent conflict intervention
|
|
|
| |
|
To explore issues and situations
that participants are likely to confront
in direct intervention /nonviolent action in areas of
war / civil war / violent conflict;
|
|
|
|
To train them for democratic
leadership in conflict resolution through
non-violence
|
To cooperate in groups
and teams (Group competences and technical
skills)
|
|
An effective, agreed-upon
decision-making capability.
|
|
| |
To be able to notice gender
aspects and to derive relating goals for
volunteer practice (analysis)
|
|
|
|
| |
To understand and consider
intercultural correlations (conflict transformation)
|
To explore the social and
political circumstances that the participants
work in and develop a critical understanding
while respecting differences
|
.
|
|
| |
|
Future preparation of those
people who are involved in nonviolent action
as a form of third party conflict intervention
in areas of war or violent conflict
|
Ideas about what the team
wants to do while understanding the need
to be flexible and adaptable
|
To provide participants
with knowledge and practical tips to help
them work effectively in
a delegation
|
|
To equip them with skill
for individual or mass action
|
To use technical skills
(group competences an technical skills)
|
|
|
To discuss issues, problems,
and challenges participants may meet in
situations of conflict, disasters, and
development;
To help develop participants'
skills in relation to relief and development
issues and dilemmas
|
| |
|
|
Knowledge on how to stay
healthy
|
|
| |
|
|
A good understanding of WfP
|
Understanding of and commitment
to RC/RC structure and principles
|
| |
To understand and value
the conditions, situation of the guest
country / the region of conflict (Specific
situation)[28]
|
|
A basic understanding of
Nicaraguan history, politics, language,
culture, and U.S. involvement."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Provide participants and
National Society with the opportunity to
reassess their suitability as RC/RC delegates
|
5.3.2 Length and structure of
courses
There are different curricula
for longer-term training courses that have been
developed over the last years. To mention only
two of them:
The Christian Council of Sweden has
produced a curriculum for a 8-12 week training
for Nonviolent Peace
service, based on experiences collected in 12
training sessions/seminars given by different
actors, among them the Swedish Military Academy, University
Uppsala, Centre for Nonviolence Osijek,
Responding to Conflict Birmingham.[29]
The Federation for Social Defence
(Germany)
has published a curriculum for a one-year training
in CPS in 1996. It has become the basis for the
mentioned 4-month-course.
But the organisations that developed
these curricula all found themselves having to
scale them down to a few weeks or months when
they started to implement their visions.
One of the longest is the German
4-month (11 weeks)CPS course. It is based on
a spiral curriculum, meaning that topics are
touched upon more than once because it is assumed
that this way of learning is more appropriate
for adults. Four aspects determine the conduct
of the training:[31]
- Orientation toward subjects
as defined in the curriculum;
- Orientation toward the needs
and experiences of the participants;
- Orientation toward the future
projects of the participants;
- Process orientation.
It is structured
as follows:
Language courses that originally
were part of the course have now been separated;
but some sending organisations provide intensive
language training of 4 weeks or more after or
before the course, using the facilities of a
development organisation that regularly offers
such language training in small groups or for
even for individuals.
The IPT courses in Stadtschlaining (4
weeks) have a simpler structure, 2 weeks foundation
course are followed by a specialisation course
of another two weeks:
Shorter trainings usually do
not have such a structure but try to deal with
each subject one by one, often matching the prepared
agenda with the needs formulated by the participants.
In the extreme, the participants have been offered
a list of possible themes, and were asked to
choose which ones to tackle, and in which order.[33]
Some nonviolence trainings
- as PBI trainings and BPT trainings - ask the
participants to form small groups (base or affinity
groups) for the time of the training. These groups
give the participants an opportunity to share
in a more informal way, and may be used as a
tool for on-going evaluation during the training.
Some also value the aspect of
living together during the training as an exercise
for team work in the field, e.g. by cooking and
sharing other household chores.
5.3.3 Contents areas for general
training, mission preparation, and
specialisations
In the appendix several course
programs of European trainings are listed. In
spite of the regional concentration of one continent,
these course programs clearly show the differences
that reflect the different approaches taken by
organisations aiming at preparing volunteers/staff
for missions abroad. The main differences are:
Dealing with the issue of nonviolence. Some NGOs from an
explicit nonviolent background
put much emphasis on it, some deal with it within
a longer list of different topics (German CPS
course, Responding to Conflict), others - and
they constitute probably the majority, from governmental
/OSCE trainings over university-based ones to
the preparations offered by development organisations
- ignore it.
Conflict analysis and strategizing
about conflict, approaches and strategies of
intervention play a larger role in trainings
given by NGOs.
Dealing with the mandate and
role of international organisations in the field,
including the issue of civil-military co-operation.
In the sample, the latter only comes up mainly
in governmental courses.[36]
International Law is, within
the sample, only dealt with by governmental courses.
Practical exercises like 4-wheel
driving, radio communication, mine-awareness
training are also only dealt with in governmental
courses
What they basically all have
in common are:
gender issues,
intercultural communication,
working in a team.
5.3.4 Methods
Most trainings put much emphasis
on participatory learning methods. Role plays
and simulation games play a big role, as do working
in small groups, practical exercises and other
interactive methods.[37].
To give one example from the International Training
for Nonviolence in
the Context of War and Armed Conflict (Kurve Wustrow 1998): "Methodologically,
the training was organised as a shared process
of learning, mainly employing participatory exercises.
Participants learned by sharing their experiences,
discovering new aspects and evaluating them.
As such, the training was a combination of short
theoretical inputs, the introduction into models
of conflict intervention, practical exercises
like role-plays or the application of a theoretical
instrument of analysis, and the evaluation of
these experiences. Among these, the extended
role play offered special experiences, integrating
a lot of skills and issues previously discussed
into a single scenario lasting over an evening,
a night and the following morning."[38]
The trainings differ in how much
more traditional means of learning and teaching
like talks, written material, preparing own talks
are used. It seems that generally nonviolence trainers
prefer a learning style by experience rather
then by having the right definitions presented,
while the more traditional courses work intensively
with long presentations, perhaps including a
simulation game or a role-play.
5.3.5 Costs of Trainings
The costs of trainings vary widely
both on a regional basis, and are dependent on
who the trainers/ the training institution are.
Basically, the following five kinds of expenses
might occur:
Rent of venue; if participants
stay in-house: accommodation, food;
Honorarium of trainers. It seems
that the market is very different in different
countries. But generally there is a tendency
for experienced trainers to make a living by
giving trainings[39],
which means that they do not work for free, or
not usually(?). Also within one country, prices
might vary. To give an example: Training honoraria
in Germany vary
between DM 500 and 1,500 per day (that is between
217 and 652 US$), with some professionals asking
even higher prices.
Materials for the training: This
is, even if modern technology, like Powerpoint presentations
and the like, is used, rather negligible compared
to the other budget items.
Travel of participants: If the
participants are staff/volunteers of a specific
organisation, their travel is usually paid. How
much that is obviously depends on the distance.
Salary for participants*: Professional
organisations usually pay a salary for their
staff while they attend the training. That might
be somewhat lower than in the field.[40]
To give just one example of total
costs: The 11-week CPS course in Germany costs
per participant (total costs, including salaries
for trainers) about 40,000 DM, that is ca. 18,000 US$.
5.3.6 Trainers and Participants
Most of the training in this
field is not recognised anywhere in the world
as a certified profession - like e.g. an electrician
in many countries may only call herself/himself
such if s/he has passed a certain vocational
training and final exam. Some professional groups
(e.g. family mediation, lawyers) may give certificates
only to candidates who have passed a certain
curriculum. Some vocational training institutes
might additionally require practical professional
expertise in the profession whose members are
to be trained, though this is a criterion that
is often not fulfilled. (For example, PBI prefers
trainers who have been to the field themselves,
but the German 4-month CPS course has no trainer
with practical experience as a CPS volunteer.)
That means that, particularly
with the smaller training organisations, the
quality of a trainer cannot be measured by exam
degrees but by other indicators: years of experience,
numbers of people applying to attend his/her
course repeatedly, agreement to voluntary standards
that may have been defined among some training
organisations (there is such an attempt among
some French and German training organisations),
or evaluations of her/his courses if there have
been any. In the case of more academic training
institutes, you might find that all teachers
have PhDs or comparable degrees, but that again
says little about their practical experience
in the field, nor about their pedagogical qualifications.
Some training organisations value
working with multi-national teams (Responding
to Conflict, Kurve Wustrow),
and this is always something that is highlighted
as very important and useful. The problems are
financial limitations, problems of communication,
and problems of getting a visa to enter Europe. [41]
Regarding the qualifications
of participants, most training institutions offering
open courses have some limiting criteria of who
may participate in their courses. These often
are:
a minimum age (between 23 and
30)
experience abroad, often already
concrete work in the country of deployment/ affiliation
to an organisation
experience with conflicts
readiness to use nonviolence and
participatory methods
experience with working in NGOs/social
movements
High motivation and ability to
stand frustrations
Vocational training and experience
in the profession
Ability to speak and understand
the language the training is given in
Proof of these elements by bringing
references.
There are two more sets of criteria
besides the individual aspects:
1. Group composition (in terms
of national and gender balance mainly)
2. Feasibility meaning funding
(participants being able to pay the fees, or
the availability of other sources to support
their participation)
5.3.7 Lessons learned in different
trainings
The evaluation of the above-mentioned
2-week training in the Kurve Wustrow highlights
several aspects that are of general importance.
The Kurve has been involved over many
years in trainings for peace team projects like
PBI and BPT. The trainers voiced the following
criticism:
The sending organisation provides
the training organisation with a long list of
topics. "Therefore the possibility for the
creativity of the team, to take in participants'
experiences, to respond to group processes, was
very limited."
Nonviolence was perceived as a strategy or even reduced
to tactics because participants "had to
learn nonviolence". "The
liberating aspects of nonviolence got
lost."
"The specific approach of
Peace Teams, non-partisanship was perceived like
a given dogma. There was not enough room to reflect
the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches
in specific situations." [44]
This criticism voiced by the
trainers should be compared with the evaluation
by participants of a somewhat earlier training
given by the same institution: An evaluation
done by the participants of the European Volunteer
Training (given by Kurve Wustrow with PBI, BPT and Christian
Peace Service) had as one result on the contents
of the training sessions that many people considered
the project-specific sessions more useful then
the general sessions (e.g. on nonviolence) which they felt sometimes
did not go deep enough into the issues.[45] This
is a very common evaluation to be found in many
different evaluations by participants.[46] That
means that there is doubt cast on the usefulness
of concentrating on the ideology and principles
of nonviolence [47]. But since there has been no study
comparing the usefulness of different types of
training for personnel in the field, it is difficult
to evaluate the different approaches in terms
of impact they really have. Interviewing trainers
and participants right before and after the training
does not provide very useful information about
the usefulness of different training types for
work in the field.
Another aspect of the International
Training that was considered very important was
its multinational character. Arguments given
were that it challenges one's own priorities,
that it allows stepping out of one's own situation,
work on one's own stereotypes, sharing with an
international community and building networks.[48].
This positive aspect, to which
the international team of trainers (a German,
an American and a Nepalese) contributed ,outweighed
the negatives -namely problems communicating
in a language foreign to most participants.
The team evaluating the Swedish
contribution to different election monitoring
programs in South Africa came to the following conclusions:[49]
"The main emphasis should
be on mediating and preparing the content of
the work tasks (conflict resolution, mediating,
methods of investigation etc.)
Deployment at a recipient organisation
and geographical district, and also the composition
of teams, should be carried out before or at
the beginning of the training, so that the building
of the team can start during the training;
The training should be structured
and carried out in close co-operation with representatives
from all the recipient organisations involved;
The major part of the training
should be carried out in the place where the
peace monitors shall work and contain orientation
of the local cultures, as well as an introduction
to the local language.
Include preparations for the
management of conflicts that originate in the
differences concerning sex, class, age, organisation,
and culture."
The Draft Proposal of NP envisages
the following process:
" Training:
Complex conflict situations require
highly qualified competencies. Active members
of the Peace Force will take part in a two month
general training that focuses on history and
theory of nonviolence, nonviolent peacemaking,
cultural sensitivity, listening, mediation skills
and conflict transformation. In addition, military
training models[51] that focus on preparation for entering
conflict situations will be utilised.
A more specific training of up
to two months duration will follow focusing on
the local area of deployment including language,
culture, analysis of the conflict and discussion
of appropriate means of peaceful engagement.
All or part of this training phase will be done
in the deployment area in conjunction with local
peacemakers.
Advance training will also be
offered in various speciality methods including
protective accompaniment, conflict transformation,
and mediation. Continuing education will be required
for all members."
The considerations and recommendations
made below have been made independently of this
Draft Proposal. That means, it has not been asked: "What
is the best way to realise this model?",
but: "What would be the best model"?,
and compare these reflections with the thinking
in the Draft Proposal.
There are several basic choices
to be made planning an "Assessment, Training
and Placement (ATP) process.
5.4.1 Why training and preparation
at all?
Although not all organisations
sending personnel to the field do have special
training, the broad agreement is that there should
be training.
Arguments are:
There is a host of knowledge
on methods and approaches to nonviolent intervention
that have not yet found entrance into normal
university-based peace study etc. courses;
Skills related to managing complex
situations within pluralistic cultures and deeply
divided societies are needed and these are not
covered by a normal professional background.
The experience of learning in
a group is an important practical preparation
for working as a team in the field[53]
It gives the participants the
chance to learn from each other, bringing their
personal experiences and knowledge into the course.
Trainings offer a good chance
to build group identity before starting field
work.
The ambitious character of NP
projects will demand that, in Carl Stieren's words, "individual
members of a NP team must be carefully selected
for success in nonviolence,
and must have training that goes far beyond merely
being an unarmed bodyguard."[55]
5.4.2 Combine training and assessment?
PBI is the outstanding example
for combining general training, preparation,
and assessment in a one-week long session. They
argue in favour of combining assessment and training
with the reason that "there will also be
a lot of stress in the field; it is important
to see how people react under stress", and
that also in the field the volunteers are asked
to continuously re-assess themselves.[56] Another argument in favour is that
it simplifies the procedure (only one event instead
of two), and thereby also lessens the costs to
both the organisation and the participants.
Other projects like Balkan Peace
Team, for example, found that the assessment
element weighed on the participants to the extent
of preventing them from learning, being focussed
on the assessment and on making a good impression,
and therefore gave up the combination soon (see
above).[57]
Recommendation: To separate assessment
and training, as it has also been proposed by Mareike Junge and Tim Wallis in Chapter
6., and organise an assessment of a few days. [58]
The assessment might, like the
BPT assessments did, include information on NP
and some introduction to nonviolence, reflect on the motivation
of the participants, give some basics about the
character of the work within NP, include a longer
role play/simulation game, and end with a process
of self-evaluation and assessment by the NP staff.
One important aspect to be considered
while carrying out the assessment are cultural
differences between the participants. Berndt/Sternberg
have pointed out that in BPT as in PBI assessments
often all African applicants fell through. An
assessment for a global organisation must not
be based on criteria developed by the members
of one culture alone.
But there should be the provision
made that after the training the contract/agreement
with volunteers may be cancelled, because sometimes
new aspects might come up not realised during
the assessment, that cast strong doubts on the
suitability of a future volunteer. Of course,
that right has to be mirrored by the applicant
having the right to withdraw after the training
without sanctions invoked.
5.4.3 What kinds of training
and preparation are needed?
Out of practical reasons (funds,
time available), those organisations that train
their own staff, combine training and preparation.
Training here means dealing with more fundamental
issues like nonviolence, conflict transformation
skills, cultural sensitivity, gender sensitivity
etc., while preparation describes learning about
the goals of the organisation, about the conflict,
country, and learning the language. A third category
is so-called specialisations like specific working
techniques (see below).). Of course, there is
an overlap between the three.
Most training organisations as
well as sending organisations surveyed tend to
agree that - at least theoretically - it is better
to separate basic training and preparation, preparation
building upon what has been worked on during
a more general training. This observation also
agrees with both the NP Draft Proposal and the
ATP-Process recommended by Junge/Wallis (Chapter 6).
Recommendation, therefore: Separate
a basic training from concrete preparation for
work in the field, and offer specialisations
for those working techniques that not everyone
needs to have a knowledge of. But separation
might not necessarily mean that there is a time
gap between the two. Also a model could be imagined
where the preparation follows the basic training
without a break.[59]
5.4.3.1 Basic training
The basic goal of the training
would be to lay the foundations needed for each
NP volunteer in order to later succeed in her/his
work for NP. Concretely, I would like to propose
the following objectives for NP training, based
on the goals other training and sending organisations
have developed for their work:
To assist participants to explore
their motivations;
To assist participants in the
development of a deeper awareness of their personal
strengths, weaknesses and priorities ;
To nurture a deeper understanding
of nonviolence in attitudes, thinking
and practice;
To analyse, understand and work
on attitudes and behaviour regarding gender,
age, sexual orientation, lifestyle, ethnic, cultural
and national differences;
To learn to analyse and understand
different kinds of conflicts and their sources;
To get to know what instruments
of conflict transformation (including peacebuilding,
peacekeeping and peacemaking) are available and
under which circumstances they may be used appropriately;
and to develop skills in relation to nonviolent conflict
intervention;
To explore issues and situations
that participants are likely to confront in direct
intervention /nonviolent action
in areas of war / civil war / violent conflict;
To learn to co-operate in multinational
and multicultural groups and teams.
Perhaps to work on mandate and
policies of the organisation (if the basic training
is organised by NP itself).
There are different options,
and according choices to be made regarding the
Basic Training:
Should every active member of
NP have undergone the same training, or should
allowance be made for the individual qualifications
each person brings, as well as for possible tasks
she/he will be earmarked for? The arguments in
favour of each are:
|
Same Basic Training
|
Different ones
|
|
NP would be sure that everyone
has some common background
|
The training would fit
better to the individual needs of each
person
|
|
Easier to set up because
it needs less co-ordination then matching
applicants with different types of training
|
In a larger-scale mission,
not everyone needs to have the same skills
because there would be probably a higher
degree of division of labour
|
Recommendation: To try to adapt
to the individual needs of each applicant as
much as possible. That might mean for example,
that at the beginning there are only three options:
One more basic Basic Training
for those without any relevant experience either
in working abroad or in conflict transformation,
One training for persons that
have worked abroad but don't know anything about
conflict transformation, and
Waving of basic training for
those who have experience working on conflict
in their own countries, because what they need
to learn would be contents of the mission preparation.
Should NP make use of existing
open trainings, or organise one of its own?,
The advantages of each are:
|
Using existing trainings
|
Organise own NP trainings
|
|
Less co-ordinating efforts
needed because applicants can choose when
and where to attend a course (out of a
list of NP-approved courses, of course);
and probably less costs (?).
|
NP would be sure that everyone
has some common background
|
|
Getting to know different
approaches might later enrich a team
|
The corporate identity
of NP gets strengthened at an earlier stage
|
|
NP would avoid competition
with other organisations offering trainings
|
Possibility to further
assess the future staff/volunteers
|
|
Possibility of relying
on the experience of trainings that work
(guarantee of quality)
|
Possibility to set own
standards and determine own approach to
training
|
|
Need to develop and apply
training standards, in order to decide
which trainings are appropriate.
|
Need to develop own curriculum
|
|
Examples: foundational
two-week course in Stadt-Schlaining or
the International Training by Kurve Wustrow (10
days), or the longer courses in Woodbrooke (Responding
to Conflict) or CPS Germany
|
If one of the possible
roles for NP will be to train other people
in conflict situations, to be able to do
that would be a very strong case for developing
our own training.
|
| |
Example: NP Canada could
organise basic training for Canadians;
NP Japan for Japanese; or central places
could be chosen where people from all over
the world come. .
|
The decision whether to organise
own trainings or use existing trainings also
depends on the length of the training envisioned.
There are very few trainings on the market of
a length of two months or more, and these would
not able to cope with a sudden demand of about
200 (or more) NP volunteers to be trained. That
means that a decision to have a training of that
length would have as consequence that NP would
have to set it up by itself.
If the decision is made in favour
of short, 2-3 week trainings, the courses of
existing training institutions could be used,
and perhaps additionally some NP country groups
might decide to organise their own trainings
(e.g. Canada).
Looking at the pros of each model above, I tend
to vote for own trainings because the arguments
for own courses seem to me to be the more important
ones.
If NP decided in favour of 2-3
week long own courses, it could approach existing
training institutions if they were willing to
provide such a service in co-operation with NP,
rather then NP organising everything (including
finding trainers) by itself from scratch.[61] The
advantage of the first would be that there is
already infrastructure in place. The disadvantage
is that of course the contents of the trainings
would be influenced by the style of each training
institution, and that the sense of unity might
be lessened. To overcome this problem, there
is the possibility of raising a corps of NP trainers
who know exactly what NP is about, and who as
co-trainers in these trainings, or the job could
only be given to such institutions that have
at least one trainer who underwent a NP training
for trainers, learning about NP's specifics.
Places:
If NP voted for setting up its own trainings,
the question would arise of where they should
take place. Here the advantage of training in
a multicultural/national team have to be weighed
against travelling costs.
Recommendation: If there are
own trainings, set them up as multinationally as
possible, because that will be the reality in
the field, and the factor of people learning
from each other would be much stronger. It is
recommended to identify two key centres in each
world region in a well-connected network that
would take care of the training. [62]
This recommendation has to be
weighed against another model that would work
with national contingents, and it also assumes
that everyone in NP will be able to speak a common
language.[63]
The length of the basic training
might prove a controversial issue within NP.
While the Draft Proposal speaks of 2 months,
the recommendation by Mareike Junge and Tim Wallis considers
2 weeks an appropriate time for this initial
training.
Several aspects have been mentioned above:
Costs of a two month training:
Probably costs would depend a lot on the country
where the training is held. Lacking more concrete
figures, an average cost of about 6.650 US$ per
participant is estimated, based on the price
level in Germany. That sum would include the salary of two
trainers, one assistant and child care, venue,
food and accommodation, a (very low) salary for
the volunteers, and some overhead for the administration.[64] It further assumes a training group
of about 15 participants because this is the
size appropriate to interactive and participatory
methods recommended by most trainers. Larger
groups would of course lessen the costs, as would
making the participants pay a fee.
Even if the participants are
paid a salary by NP for the time of the training,
there is the question whether a sufficient number
of people would be able to afford that time span.
A problem would arise if the participants would
have to bridge time between the training, and
later preparation and deployment, because probably
nowhere in the world can someone afford to take
leave of 2 months and still keep her/his job.
Probably only unemployed, those kept by a husband/wife/family,
or students would be able to be away from work
for 2 months. [65] In
order to not limit the choice of future personnel
, NP would have to offer to start the period
of employment beginning with the training.
If a longer training then 2-3
weeks is wanted, there is one other option to
explore: The training could be organised in modules
over week-ends with a few whole weeks in between,
and over a period of one or two years. As mentioned
above, this is the model some training organisations
are going for because of the availability of
their participants.
What length is appropriate? Here
the views among trainers as among sending organisations
and former participants of trainings vary a lot.
There is a blatant lack of comparing evaluations.
What is the training meant to achieve in that
time? Perhaps for different applicants different
lengths are appropriate - the less experienced,
the more training needed (see recommendation
above). On the other hand, the experience with
the German CPS course has cast doubts - at least
in my eyes - on the ability of even a 4-month
course to overcome shortcomings and deficits
weaker participants brought. At least those qualifications
having to do with personal traits in my eyes
have already to be there, unless a training process
of several years were envisaged.
Recommendation: To start with
shorter basic trainings of about 2 weeks length
(to which then preparation is added) because
of costs, and because the usefulness of longer
trainings is not proven. (It must also not be
forgotten that there are mission preparations
and possibly specialisation courses in addition.)
5.4.3.2 Mission-specific Preparation
"To perform successfully
during their assignment, peacebuilders need
to adapt as much as possible to the specific
conditions in the mission area and to link their
activities to the prevailing conflict situation
and the actors involved".[66]
All evaluations have shown that
it is considered to be a big advantage if it
can be organised, that teams are being trained
together[67],
because it helps a lot to bind teams together.
There is a strong argument to do the preparation
in the field or at least close by if the country
in question is too dangerous.
The length of the preparation
would depend on the character of the mission
for which the volunteers would be prepared. For
example, PBI trainer Michael Valliant thinks
that accompaniment etc. can be taught in about
one week, while additional training and experience
is gained in the field.[68] My
view is that a thorough preparation would probably
take more time, even if the participants are
required to prepare themselves carefully beforehand,
e.g. by reading about the region, making contacts
to resource persons knowledgeable about the conflict
etc. I would recommend at least another two weeks
for preparation as the absolute minimum.
Language training should not
be part of this preparation, but be attended
to separately because of the longer amount of
time needed to learn a foreign language. There
are institutions offering intensive (all-day)
trainings to be found in most countries of the
world, and the recommendation here is that NP
applicants after having generally been accepted,
and put into the pool, are not only encouraged
but required to attend such courses - in my eyes
necessarily at the expense of NP.[69]
5.4.3.3 Specialisations
Following up on the recommendations
in the personnel section (Chapter 6), it would
be very useful if further trainings and possibilities
for specialisation were provided. There are two
- not contradictory - options:
Training for volunteers who are
already in the field. As mentioned above, everywhere
where this has been tried it was considered to
be very useful, and should be built into the
NP plan.
Encouraging people to attend
specialisation courses offered on the market,
be it on mediation, election monitoring or practical
skills like bookkeeping.
The average length of such specialisations
is one to two weeks.
5.4.4 Contents areas of general
training (T), mission preparation (P), and
specialisations (S)
The contents of the training
basically fall into the realm of curriculum development,
and cannot be part of this study. It is recommended
that the curriculum should be developed by a
working group of trainers from different parts
of the world, bringing their specific experiences
into the training curriculum. Thereby, hegemony
by one culture (e.g. the Western training tradition)
could be avoided.
Having said this, the following
list of topics is proposed based on programs
developed by different sending organisations
and training institutions. Whoever prepares the
curriculum should read and refer to those curricula
that do exist.[71] Perhaps
it is not necessary to re-invent the wheel. It
should be further kept in mind what has been
said above about the different approaches to
training and preparation. Specifically, there
is an issue around the question how much nonviolence should
be part of the training. If NP is aiming at mainstreaming nonviolent intervention,
it has certainly to take care that it does not
give the impression of wanting to missionise people or exclude those
with a pragmatic approach. On the other hand,
the work it proposes to do requires understanding
of how nonviolent conflict
transformation works.
The nonviolence training
model assumes that all people need equally to
be trained in nonviolence (and not necessarily
in anything else). The professional training
model (e.g. IPT etc) generally trains people,
who already have specialist skills, how to adapt
these to a specific conflict environment. A middle
approach might be to train people for different
roles and levels of responsibility appropriate
to their level of skills and experience at that
time - including a very basic training for people
with little or no skills or experience, right
up to very specific trainings for people with
highly specialised roles or high levels of responsibility
in the field.
The starting point for any training
programme must be to look at what is needed on
the ground, and then ask what training or preparation
may be needed for people to do that.
As already mentioned above, many
organisations distinguish some kind of general
or basic training, and more specific mission
preparation. If the participants of the basic
trainings will later work with different organisations,
the basic training probably will not include
elements like mandate/approach of specific organisations,
nor conflict analysis and culture of one conflict
area. If they all will work for one and the same
organisation, but still go to different missions,
the training would probably include the former,
but still not the latter.
In addition, there are some special
tasks that require more specific training[73], and that may be taken care of by
only certain mission members, not by everyone
in one mission, for example information dissemination,
project management, book-keeping and office administration.
It is those practical tasks that will be marked
as specialisations here. To avoid confusion,
I would like to state clearly at the beginning
that most of the specialisation courses as given
by IPT in Stadtschlaining or
the German CPS course (e.g. election monitoring,
civil society building) deal in fact with tasks
that might be specific to certain missions, but
would have to be included for everyone participating
for example in an election monitoring mission.
Only if the mission was a very large and complex
one, similar to complex UN mission with different
divisions for peacekeeping, peace-building and
e.g. election preparation, it would make sense
to call tasks like civil society building or
human rights protection specialisations. Eventually
NP might arrive at such a point where division
of labour of this type might be introduced. But
based on the lessons learned looking at smaller
(and larger-scale) civilian missions, it seems
to me that the personnel usually had to be rather
multi-functional, being able to monitor, negotiate
with local parties, and give advice to a NGO
in the field all at the same time and as part
of their work description. Therefore, I have
listed these areas here as mission preparation/specialisation
rather than as specialisation only.
Motivation of participants (T & P)
Motivation, e.g. Sharing personal
journeys;
Dealing with possibility of death
and/or suffering
Theoretical framework (T)
Conflict analysis, including
gender-specific issues
Intervention strategies
Concept of impartiality
Conflict resolution skills (T,
some S)
Communication and listening skills
Mediation, facilitation etc.
Training skills
Nonviolence skills (T)
History and theory/principles
of nonviolence
Positioning oneself to nonviolent philosophy
Concept of reconciliation
Interpersonal competences and
awareness (T, P)
Reflection of own role
·Being
able to deal with frustration and ambiguities,
dealing with dilemmas
Stress reduction and relaxation
techniques; dealing with possible trauma, handling
fear
Gender issue awareness
Age issue awareness
Lifestyle issues
cultural and national differences
Special nonviolent working
techniques (P,S)
Accompaniment/presence
Different monitoring techniques,
e.g. election monitoring
Crisis intervention in cases
of threatened violence (interpositioning etc.)[74]
Crowd control
Nonviolent direct action
Knowledge of relevant issues
(T)
Human Rights, International Law
Mandate and policies of international
organisations (UN, OSCE, NATO etc.)
Mandate and policies of international
NGOs in the field
Peacebuilding by local/indigenous groups
Humanitarian assistance
Other work-related skills (P,some S)
Strategy development and project
planning
Campaigning
capacity-building
Dealing with media attention,
information dissemination
Report writing
Project management
Book-keeping and financial reporting
Fundraising
Death and trauma counselling
Mine awareness
Radio communication, 4-wheel
driving, map reading
Project evaluation
Working in a team (T & P)
Decision-making
Life-style and community issues,
Trust building,
Intercultural communication (in
the team)
Giving and receiving criticism
Leadership training
Practical issues, logistics (P)
Information on visas, entering
the country etc.
Working with interpreters
Information flow
Communication technology
Appropriate clothing
Other do's and don'ts in a country
Medical conditions
Other safety recommendations
Knowledge about the organisation,
its mandate, objectives of the project.
Knowledge of country and conflict
(P)
History and dimensions of the
conflict
Understanding the culture (cultural
sensitivity)
Local NGOs, Indigenous peacemaking
efforts
Language Training
5.4.5 How to deal with large
numbers of participants
One of the greatest challenges
of NP will be to handle large numbers of personnel
- the plan is to have up to 2,000 people in the
field at the same time. Assuming an average length
of stay of one year, and a turn-over every six
months so that not all 2,000 stop working at
the same time, it means that at least 6,000 people[76] would have to be trained and prepared
per year. Assuming a group size of 15 participants
per training, that would mean that there would
have to be 200 trainings and 200 mission preparations
per year.
I would strongly advise against
trying to deal with this daunting number by rising
the numbers of participants per trained unit,
or introducing military-style trainings if by
that is meant to train a crowd of hundred or
two hundred persons together. The success of
the trainings would suffer. Rather, either the
establishment of a smaller number of training
institutions in different parts of the world
that concentrate only on training NP personnel,
or even more decentralising the training to the
level of individual states should be considered.
This would not exclude for example having 100
people in one venue at one time, as long as that
group is split up in smaller training units.[77]
5.4.6 One final word
Training nowadays is a business,
and a market with competitors fighting for their
survival. NP will be faced with many expectations
and wishes by training organisations to play
a special role in setting up training for NP,
and many of them may have claims on friendship
and solidarity to support them. There will also
be concerns - and probably not unfounded ones
- that setting up NP-own trainings means competition
for the existing organisations. Here NP will
have to find a way to manage this kettle of worms
without compromising its own needs regarding
training.
Appendix 1:
Examples of different course programs
The following examples are all
recent programs of different lengths, intended
for personnel of NGOs (and governments) going
to work in civilian missions in conflict areas:
International Training for Nonviolence: Nonviolence in
the Context of War or Armed Conflict (Kurve Wustrow)
In a 2-week course given by an
international trainers' team in the English language
the following subjects are dealt with:
Principles of nonviolence, nonviolent direct
action and nonviolent conflict
intervention
Understanding and transforming
conflicts
Political analysis and reconciliation
Observing/reporting human rights
violations
Dealing with stress, fear and
traumatic experiences
Consensus decision making and
team work
Issues of cultural sensitivity
"Other topics, such as nonviolent communication skills,
strategy development, or dealing with threatening
situations, may be included in the agenda if
this is relevant to the group's work." it
says in the program leaflet.
International Civilian Peace-keeping
and Peace-building Training Program of the Austrian Study Center for Peace and Conflict Resolution (Stadtschlaining)
In a two-week foundation course
(in English language) the following themes are
dealt with:
Strategies of varies actors for
intervention
Human rights protection
Project Planning and Project
Management
Workshop on conflict transformation
Case studies on particular conflicts
-Stress
training and trauma work
Gender aspects in peacebuilding
Cooperation with the military,
security issues, mine awareness training
Role of CIVPOL
Practical exercises: radio communication,
map reading, four wheel drive
Complex simulation exercise
Specialisation courses (two weeks
each) are offered on the following subjects:
Election Observation and Assistance
Empowerment for Political Participation
Human Rights Protection and Promotion
Humanitarian Assistance
-Information
Dissemination
Post-conflict Reconstruction
Conflict management (e.g. mediation)
German CPS 4-month course
The curriculum, defining ten
goals, has been described above. Each course
is based on this curriculum, but the concrete
layout of the program so far has differed from
course to course, dependent mostly, it seems,
on the personal preferences of the trainers -
and the composition of the trainees' group that
varies quite a lot.
The program of the autumn course
in 2000 looked like this:
Phase 1: Group finding, communication,
conflict
week 1: Getting to know each
other, NCBI workshop,
week 2: Nonviolence,
communication and conflict
Phase 2: Political peace work
week 3: Political peace work
(international organisations, development work
and CPS, conflict analysis, history of the courses)
week 4: Project experience and
planning
week 5: Project work and organiser
training
Phase 3: Border experiences
week 6: Preventing trauma and
burn-out
week 7: Gender and intercultural
competences
Phase 4: Being a guest at a project (weeks
8-10)
week 11: Evaluation of these
two weeks
Phase 5: Deepening issues
week 12 and 13. Subjects were,
among others, training in facilitation, dealing
with direct violence, justice, reconciliation
in the Caucasus (?), death and trauma, dealing
with group conflicts
Phase 6: Specialisation courses
The topics of the specialisation
courses aren't (yet) fully standardised but vary.
They have a duration of one week so that each
participant may choose two of them. Usually topics
that have been regularly chosen included:
