Description

Non-Official Facilitation includes:

· Controlled communication

· Problem-solving workshops (PSW)

· Conflict analysis

· Dialogue facilitation

· Third-party consultation

· Pre-negotiation workshops

· Other types of unofficial or "Track-Two" diplomacy.

Objectives

· Produce change in the participants' attitudes, perceptions, images, and ideas about the conflict

· Foster new realizations about the sources and nature of the conflict

· Generate insights and creative solutions to the problem

· Generate ways by which whatever change occurs in the participants will be transferred in some way to the larger political/decision-making process.

Expected outcome

or impact

· Increased understanding or improved attitudes on the part of participants

· A positive influence on the peace process

· Specific contributions that were fed into the peace process in the form of principles for a settlement, plans for peace-building activities, and initiatives.

In most workshops, participants emerge with new insights and options, ideas about alternative means, procedures for moving toward a solution, and some principles on which a solution might be based.

Relationship to

conflict prevention

Implementation

Organizers

Participants

Third party facilitators should be fully competent and properly qualified in relevant disciplines and practical experience.

Activities

Representatives of the disputing parties meet in the presence of a panel of consultants who facilitate the exercise. The facilitators do not provide traditional mediation or offer solutions, but work to put the adversaries in a situation where they explore possibilities and options together, leading to a "win-win" solution to what can be recognized as a mutual problem. Facilitators seek to provide participants with an opportunity for and example of a more effective mode of interaction, and to look at the conflict with an analytical rather than coercive viewpoint.

Some NOF exercises involve a highly structured sequence of planned activities designed to minimize antagonisms between adversaries, break down barriers, and create a minimal sense of trust between participants before moving on to further exercises directly related to the conflict. Others are unstructured. Discussion of potential solutions usually waits until each party talks of their own perspectives, concerns, fears and needs, and appears to understand those of the other party. The dialogue then turns to discussing potential solutions, with each party responsible for devising solutions that are mutually satisfactory.

When parties in conflict are deadlocked, workshop organizers and facilitators are responsible for preparing conciliatory gestures to break the deadlock, reestablishing the fact that there is potential for negotiation, and exploring the conditions necessary to restart stalled talks.

One form of NOF, Problem-Solving Workshops (PSWs), aims at a specific political purpose, closely linked to the phase of actual ongoing negotiations:

· In the pre-negotiation phase the purpose of a PSW is to identify conditions required for negotiations, and to help create a political environment conducive to encouraging the parties to move toward the negotiation table.

· During actual negotiations, the PSW process can help break stalemates or work out specific solutions to technical, political, or emotional blocks. The solutions identified in PSWs can then be incorporated into the official process.

· In the post-negotiation phase, PSW participants can help identify ways to implement the agreement which has been reached, and explore ways to co-exist, cooperate, and develop a long-term relationship.

Objectives of another NOF method, Pre-Negotiation Workshops, include:

· Altering participants' perceptions and helping them develop the will to negotiate during the early stage of a crisis.

· Identifying methods for getting to the table for negotiations, and the structure of the negotiations.

· Identifying relationships between non-reducible needs and negotiable interests that must be addressed in negotiations.

· Trying to create integrative solutions and a framework for substantive negotiations.

A Pre-Negotiation Workshop has three stages: framing, inventing, and structuring:

· Framing is the process by which parties in conflict derive shared definitions about conflict parameters and build a will to negotiate. The objectives of this stage are to change the parties' negative views of the conflict; for participants to publicly acknowledge their own needs and values; and to teach the participants how to distinguish between the positions, interests, and needs that each party brings to the conflict. The third party lectures on communication and empathy, followed by directed group discussions.

· During the inventing stage, integrative approaches are used to design possible solutions to the conflict, to promote confidence that negotiations are worth undertaking, and to foster agreements that endure without undermining the needs of either party. This stage begins with instruction on integrative solutions, then moves to group participation in a brainstorming session, with guidance from the third party on tactics for constructive, creative, integrated solutions..

To facilitate integrative problem-solving, three categories of solutions are used: resource expansion, exchange techniques, and functional techniques. In resource expansion, parties can assume that the amount or types of resources needed to resolve the conflict can be expanded. In exchange techniques, parties first determine the extent to which they prioritize their interests differently, then attempt to make exchanges and/or offer compensation for differently valued issues and interests. The parties may try to build integrative solutions through three types of functional techniques: sharing, division, and delegation.

The participants then evaluate their options in light of the underlying needs listed during the framing stage, and consider their likely acceptance by each party's constituency. The most promising possibilities are elaborated to provide concrete ideas for future negotiations.

· During the structuring stage, preparations are made for negotiations on the joint solutions developed during the inventing stage. The agenda is established, including procedural issues such as time and venue for negotiations, selection of participants, and the need for and role a third party could play.

Cost considerations

Other resource considerations

Most high-level workshops have been held in neutral sites, often a third country, away from the given conflict situation addressed.

Set-up time

Timeframe to see results

Conflict context

Stage of conflict

Problem-solving exercises have been usefully employed at the height of violent interactions and confrontation, in times of impasse, and in the period immediately following a short, violent conflict. Certain types of problem-solving activities may be more appropriate than others, depending on the stage reached. However, insufficient work has been done to identify which stages, the conflict characteristics and circumstances for which NOF exercises are likely to be effective, and the most appropriate form of NOF initiatives for particular circumstances.

Type of conflict

Cause of conflict

Prerequisites

Past practice

Within the Greater Horn

The objectives of the project were:

· To ascertain whether in the detached and permissive atmosphere of a workshop the participants might express and then modify some of their attitudes and values, improve their communication skills, reveal the deeper psychological or emotional issues in the disputes, and thereby move close to an innovative resolution.

· To give participants new insights into the attitudes and values behind the disputes.

· To see whether the influential elites participating in the workshop would or could transmit their new knowledge and insight to the leaders in authority.

The planning process took over three years and encountered numerous complications and cancellations. To raise money, the organizers approached major foundations and private individuals in the US, most of which refused to support the initiative, considering the project too politically sensitive and impracticable. They applied to the US government for financial support, but were also rejected. In an attempt to demonstrate the plan's feasibility, the organizers then used funds from Yale University to visit the three countries, to gain tacit approval from government leaders and to locate six highly qualified and willing participants. The workshop cost $40,000, not including hidden expenses, for example, salaries and overhead that Yale absorbed over an extended period. Eventually, the exercise was sponsored by the Academy for Educational Development, James Marshall Fund, Yale University, with institutional support from the UN Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), and funds from a British trust.

Organizers encountered administrative and other difficulties scheduling the workshop. They used a neutral, isolated location insulated from family, work, and professional distractions to promote critical reflection and intensive encounters.

Participants were mostly academics. Since Somalia had no university, four of the Somali participants were government employees (with no connection to foreign policy) and two were private lawyers; one was exceptionally well-versed in Somali traditional proverbs, poems, and stories, which he frequently recited during the workshop. Since none of the participants officially represented their governments, they were less constrained to uphold positions previously established by the leaders of their countries. All were members of their countries' elite and had informal influence and access to decision-making channels. However, this did not guarantee they would be willing and able to transmit the information when they returned home, or would be listened to. All were fluent in English.

The third party consisted of four American professional trainers/practitioners. The workshop was conducted in a neutral site, a hotel in a ski resort in Italy.

The participants were divided into two groups of nine participants each, called T-groups (training groups) for more intensive interaction. The trainers used sensitivity training, whereby participants learn through analysis of and generalizations from their own experience and that of others with whom they interact. The workshop included a series of small-group sessions with unstructured procedures, encouraging free interaction and expression of feelings through which participants were to learn to communicate their views. The trainers used this technique to try to create an atmosphere in which international discord might be better understood and eventually diminished so that participants and organizers might gain new insights into the attitudes and values behind the disputes. The T-groups began with minimal structure, without a specified agenda or conventional leadership. In the process of finding its way, of building structure and constructing an agenda, the T-groups were to develop a shared experience of creating something together.

The facilitators were trained in the laboratory method, and sat in on the T-groups to help the participants understand what was happening, and at times present more structured exercises such as role playing, lectures, and audiovisual aids to help the participants conceptualize and understand. The organizers were bystanders, not participants, and took notes.

The workshop was held in two phases, each lasting about a week. The first phase was calculated to generate the common understanding that would be necessary to achieve the goals of the second week, finding solutions to the border disputes. During the first phase, each side was requested to compose documents in which they listed their grievances and anticipated the grievances of their opponents. At the end of the week, organizers distributed material on the problem. Participants identified the fundamental substantive triggering issues and discussed them in great detail, generating solutions to the border problems. During the second phase, the workshop organizers became more involved, especially in discussing substantive issues. Toward the end of the second phase, participants were given some instruction on the difficulties they could expect in re-entry to their own countries.

The workshop was mostly considered partially successful. Most participants admitted having gained insights into their neighbors’ difficulties. Participants probed controversial issues. The trainers and some of the organizers believe the technique revealed attitudes not obtainable otherwise, and free and frank discussions in the T-groups raised information "of a nature that rarely comes to the surface, if ever, at regular negotiations..." However, some contend the common professional background of most participants could have produced the same result in the total absence of the training.

The main operational objective of producing a general consensus among participants for a proposal to solve the border dispute was not achieved. Each of the two T-groups argued through and eventually arrived at a detailed solution to the disputes. A joint Planning Group amalgamated the two proposals into one for presentation on the last day to the General Assembly. In retrospect, this was a major mistake: the resulting proposal satisfied no one and the whole group reached a stalemate. While the workshop did not end with a final communique proposing a single peace formula, signed by all, a general agreement was produced on a two-stage approach involving neutralization of disputed areas during the initial period.

Participants hardened their positions near the end of the workshop. Nationality became more salient as a majority of the participants became intent on promoting their government’s national interests. The organizers described what occurred the last two days as a type of "re-entry problem", whereby several individuals retreated from previously established conciliatory positions "in a manner to suggest...they were preparing a safe record of suitably nationalistic statements... or realized they were about to resume their normal lives..."

There is no way of knowing whether the successes and failures of the workshop can be attributed to the various techniques used. The trainers believed they succeeded in producing positive relationships within each of the groups to promote sufficient collaboration and commitment to yield agreement on the border problems, but failed when they tried to put the two groups together to get one common solution. The organizers and observers generally believed the training did contribute appreciably to breaking down reserve and enhancing communication between participants. The organizers concluded no fundamental changes were wrought directly by the workshop, although participants' attitudes were changed.

Subsequent events complicate whatever repercussions might have resulted from the workshop: during a coup d'etat in Somalia in October 1969 the president was assassinated and the prime minister jailed. Both had supported the workshop. Two participants, however, became major ministers in the new government, while two others were named members of a committee involved in revising the constitution. Given these events, it is even more difficult to isolate the workshop's contribution.

One or more of the African participants from each country were debriefed by their foreign offices and other government agencies, which organizers hoped helped to disseminate further the workshop’s ideas. One of the trainers and an observer recommended for future exercises that organizers select participants closer to the centers of power in their countries.

Outside the Greater Horn

Evaluation

Strengths

A workshop creates an environment for adversaries to interact in ways their home settings, and especially public events, would not permit. The setting releases participants from normal restraints by isolating them from their customary environment and encouraging them to express themselves. The workshop provides a politically safe place for testing ideas. The environment enables direct interaction and encourages the development of relationships and flexibility in looking at the parties' shared problems and possible solutions.

Through NOF workshops, participants frequently gain greater understanding of and appreciation for the political and psychological complexity of a conflict and the way they perceive the conflict, and the opposing party is often transformed.

Scholars have noted an increased level of contact and communication between participants after workshops and the birth of new networks across lines of conflict.Applications of NOF to date indicate that NOF has significant potential for the study and resolution of protracted social conflict.

Weaknesses

NOF events cannot be expected to directly deliver formal agreements.

The number of knowledgeable, skilled, ethical professionals equipped to carry out NOF applications is extremely small.

It is difficult to obtain funding, even when such interventions are requested by the parties themselves.

Conflict prevention and resolution using NOF approaches is non-dramatic, incremental, slow and modest.

Most diplomats and international organizations are not informed about this approach and how it differs from traditional methods, and have questions of its practicality and applicability, or whether it can be effective in international conflict resolution.

Given the demanding objectives of many NOF methods, some observers question how applications of short duration could hope to have a significant impact, and favor a series of workshops over time instead of just one.

Most applications of NOF thus far have had a "Western European/North American base," raising the question of the cultural appropriateness of the method to conflicts in less developed countries.

Lessons learned

There has been value gained from including both participants as close to the political mainstream of their communities as possible as well as hardline extremists. Participants should be knowledgeable of the underlying interests and values of their parties, the likely reactions to alternative solutions, and any obstacles in their parties to resolution.

Re-entry. Participants can face problems upon returning to their communities after participating in a NOF process. People who did not participate in the process may feel alienated from and suspicious of those who have. Participants with new insights and more cooperative orientations are subjected to social pressure and sometimes physical danger, potentially hostile press and public opinion, and difficulties in implementing the proposals reached. If participants develop too much empathy for one another it can negatively affect the quality of the proposals, and participants may become disqualified as representatives of their communities. Participants must take care to avoid forming a special "in-group" separate and apart from their communities. Workshop design should reflect these concerns and include sessions specifically calculated to discuss and address them.

Impact. It is difficult to ascertain the extent to which individual workshops have been influential in the peace-building process because it is unclear as to how much credit can be given to a workshop for a successful outcome to a conflict. Many variables are involved and the NOF exercise is relatively "uncontrolled." More detailed, systematic and rigorous use of research methods are required to evaluate NOF results. Most evaluations to date are based on consultant impressions with little use of pre- and post-assessments or quantitative analyses of processes or outcomes and almost no consideration of possible transfer effects.

References and Resources

Herbert Kelman and Stephen Cohen, 1976, "The Problem-Solving Workshop: A Social Psychological Contribution to the Resolution of International Conflict."

John Burton, 1986, "The History of Conflict Resolution"; Leonard Doob (ed.), Resolving Conflict in Africa: the Fermeda Workshop, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1970.Michael Banks and Christopher Mitchell, A Handbook on the Analytical Problem Solving Approach, George Mason University, Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, December 1994.