ARCA COUNTRY REPORT NORWAY

ARCA COUNTRY REPORT NORWAY By Frode Restad Norwegian Peace Association, August 2006 Table of contents Table of contents _____________________________________________ 2 Introduction _________________________________________________ 3 Organizational profile__________________________________________ 4 Respondents ______________________________________________ 4 Funding __________________________________________________ 5 Organisational Focus _______________________________________ 5 Profile of Training programs ____________________________________ 6 Providing/receiving training ___________________________________ 6 Training objectives _________________________________________ 7 Training topics & duration ____________________________________ 7 Training methodology _______________________________________ 8 Trainers and Staff _____________________________________________ 9 Training materials____________________________________________ 10 Value of training in practice ___________________________________ 10 Skills ___________________________________________________ 10 Quality __________________________________________________ 11 Suggestions for improving trainings ___________________________ 13 Cooperation with other organizations ___________________________ 14 Impact assessment __________________________________________ 15 Conclusions ________________________________________________ 16 2 Introduction Adult Training and Education for International and Intra-national Interventions for Peace Building, Conflict Transformation, Mediation and Crisis Management August 2006 NB: Reports per countries participating in the ARCA projects are drafted by partner organizations based on the data gathered from the respondents who offered information by completing the Needs Analysis Questionnaire. What is this country report? This is a document containing information on the current situation, existing resources and assessment of needs in the field of Adult Training and Education for International and Intra-national Interventions for Peace Building, Conflict Transformation, Mediation and Crisis Management in Norway. What purpose does the country report serve? The country report, with its diagnosis of the national situation in the field, can serve as a basis for further development and pioneering of peace education of adults as envisioned by the ARCA project, in the European countries participating to the ARCA project. The country reports data will be gathered in a general report as a base for the rest of the ARCA project products. General profile of a country report The country report of Norway is a document synthesizing the answers given by the Norwegian respondents, interpreting them in relation to the national basis and context. The report will be disseminated and presented to non-governmental and governmental institutions, educational and training centers, Ministry of Education and Foreign Affairs, respondents and other actors interested in receiving it. 3 Organizational profile Respondents A total of 11 Norwegian organisations responded fully to the questionnaire. 5 more were contacted but did not reply. A Danish organisation; Rosenlund Kurser also replied using the Norwegian survey, but since this report is exclusive to the Norwegian scene, their answers will not be taken into account. Below a list of the responding organisations with contact information: Organization Name Norwegian Peace Association (NPA) Centre for Peacebuilding and Conflict Management (CCM) Landsrådet for Norges barneog ungdomsorganisasjo (LNU) First Week Foundation (FWF) Flyktninghjelpen - Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) Norsk ressursbank for demokrati og mennekerettigheter (NORDEM) Nansen Dialognettverket (ND) Utenrikstjenestens kompetansesenter (MFATC) Chr. Michelsens Institutt (CMI) Centre for Peace Studies (CPS) Norsk Fredssenter (NPC) E-mail info@fredslaget.no graham@ccm.no lnu@lnu.no first.week@firstweek.com nrc@nrc.no Website www.fredslaget.no www.ccm.no www.ungnett.org www.first-week.com www.nrc.no Phone +47 97172810 +47 64946339 +47 23310600 +47 32817979 +47 23109800 siri.skare@nchr.uio.no www.humanrights.uio.no www.nansen-dialog.net www.uks.mfa.no www.cmi.no www.peace.uit.no www.fredssenter.no +47 22842001 +47 22479232 +47 22243849 +47 55574000 +4777644296 +47 61059850 uks@mfa.no cmi@cmi.no mail@peace.uit.no post@fredssenter.no Of the participating organisations, 5 are Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO’s) (NPA, CCM, LNU, FWF and NRC). Of the NGO’s almost all are also Non-Profit organisations, with the exception of NPA, who are strictly volunteer based. MFATC is the only governmental organisation (GO) in the survey. NORDEM, CMI and CPS are all academic institutions, while the NRC is also a welfare organisation. Finally the CMI is a private research institution, while the NPC organized as a foundation with public support. No international of national organisations were registered despite these options being available in the questionnaire. 4 Funding In total 3 organisations have less than 25.000 Euros in their annual budget (NPA, LNU, FWF). 4 have an annual budget of between 100.000 and 500.000 Euros (CCM, MFATC, CPS and NPC), while CMI has a budget of between 500.000 and 1 million Euros. At the top both NORDEM and ND have more than 1 million Euros in their annual budget. For the well-funded organisations services and national/international grants are the biggest sources of income. For the less funded membership fees, donations and grants from foundations also play a vital role in their finances. Organizational Focus Since NGO’s and academic institutions are the two main categories of respondents in the survey we will have a closer look at the organisational focus of these institutions. All NGO’s and GO’s focus on education, while some 80% of the NGO’s also focus on lobbying. For academic institutions the focus is threefold with research and education a high priority for all, some also find the time for direct action. 5 Profile of Training programs Providing/receiving training Of the organisations surveyed 5 NGO’s provide trainings, while 4 receive trainings. The single GO is both a provider and receiver of training. Of the Non–profit organisations 4 provide trainings and 2 receive trainings. For Academic institutions 3 are providers while only 1 receives training. The single welfare organisation in the survey both receives and provides training. Finally there are two welfare organisations providing training, while 1 is receiving. 6 Training objectives The main training objectives are for the majority of organizations categorized as training of own staff. The second biggest aim is training for local peace building and training for decision makers. Training for intervention and development projects is also a priority for many. Training topics & duration For both providers and receivers the main topic of trainings in Norway is Human rights. Second are Conflict Analysis, Mediation/Facilitation, and Intercultural Communication. The least mentioned topics for providers are Press and Public Information, and Personal Power. The least mentioned topics for receiving organizations are Stress Management - Trauma, Sustainability and Regional Conflicts. 7 For the trainings provided, most organizations prefer shorter trainings of 1-5 days, or up to 2 weeks. Some also provide trainings of 2-4 weeks, but there are no offers of 1 month trainings or longer. Training methodology As a case example, training for Human Rights (the most highly rated topic for both providers and receivers) provides an overview of the preferred training methods used by the different organizations: The preferred method for Human Rights education is Presentation and Lectures (18%). Exercises are a close second with 16% while teamwork role-plays and case studies are also used by 14% of the training organizations. In general there use of different methods is quite evenly distributed, with all 9 possibilities available in the survey being used by one or more organization. On the aggregate level, looking at all topics of training, the Lecture/Presentation model is also the most commonly used. Participatory practices such as role-plays and teamwork are also highly emphasized. On the other side of the specter, group outputs such as research papers are the least common of the options provided in the survey. 8 Although 55% of the respondents report having an internal network of training alumni, only 27% report being members of an alumni network themselves. A general profile for the Norwegian training organization can be described follows: The organization primarily provides short-term training for their own staff or local stakeholders. The most preferred topic for training is Human Rights, followed by Conflict analysis, Mediation and Intercultural communication. The preferred method of training is Lecture/presentation model in combination with participatory forms of training. The organization maintains a registry of trained persons but does not take active part in external alumni networks. Trainers and Staff Most organizations (43%) have a staff of 2-3 trainers, while some 29% also have more than this. A smaller number of organizations (14%) provide trainings based on only external trainers. Most (55%) have no assisting staff in addition to the training staff. Some (36%) have 1-3 assisting staff while only 9% of the organizations surveyed have a high number of administrative staff. 9 Training materials For many NGO’s the bulk of the materials used in trainings are collected and adapted through years of experience and contact with other training institutions. Some also base their trainings on the experiences of the participants, while others use manuals, books and publications available to the public, some of which are listed below: - COMPASS: manual for human rights education with young people - The Art of living in Peace (Pierre Weil) - Manual for the Human Rights Field worker (NORDEM) - Material developed by Nansen Dialogue, The Helsingfors Committee and others. The curriculum used in training is mostly dynamic and under constant development. The exceptions are academic institutions that have a more formal syllabus as a basis for their training. Value of training in practice Skills A total of 6 respondents answered to the question of prioritizing skills. For the organizations providing training, soft skills like teamwork and communication are rated the highest, with other skills equally distributed. Although there is little difference between providing and receiving organizations, receivers for training rate soft skills and other skills as the highest. 10 To specify, here is a list of potential Other skills provided by respondents: - Curiosity to learn more - The ability to think and act strategically in team - Understanding of lessons learned in other contexts - Reflection on own conflict behavior, empathy - Clarity about the own interests - Experience on field, feasibility, open mind - Conflict sensitivity, facilitation, stress management - Intercultural Communication competence - Bachelor degree in social science - Listen, analyze, organize prevention - Cultural sensitivity, understanding of the roles - Well choose situations - Local knowledge - Ability to go beyond analysis & diagnosis & beyond - Empathy with local populations and respect - A valuing of difference and engagement with difference - The desire to contribute with ones own competencies. For the NGO’s (NPA, CCM, LNU, FWF, NRC) the importance of the different skills is equally distributed. Non-profit organizations (CCM, FWF, ND, CMI) also have an equal distribution, but no additional skills. Academic institutions (NORDEM, CMI, CPS) emphasize soft skills more than behavioral and professional skills. Other organizations (NPC, CMI) rate soft skills as the more important. Quality 6 responses were given from providers of training to the question of quality. Of these only the FWF indicated the standard of training as “Excellent”. NORDEM, MFATC and NPC indicated a “Good” standard while the NPA replied “Satisfactory” and CCM “Poor” when rating the standard of training in the field. 11 For the organizations receiving training the general rating is “Good”. Notably none of the recipients have rated the training as “Excellent”. Since all of the organizations surveyed provide training, it is interesting to note those organizations that provide training for international deployment. These are: The Centre for Peacebuilding and Conflict Management (CCM), The First Week Foundation (FWF), The Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), The Ministry of Foreign Affairs Training Centre (MFATC), The Christian Michelsen Institute (CMI), and The Centre for Peace Studies in Tromsø (CPS). When looking at the quality rating provided by the organizations providing training for international deployments FWF as the only respondent rated the training as excellent, MFATC rated the training as good, CCM rated the training as poor, while CMI, NRC and CPS did not rate the quality of training. Of these only FWF does not also receive training. Emphasis When asked where more emphasis is needed in current trainings 51% of the respondents underline the need for more attention to practice. 40% seem to feel that the balance is appropriate, while 9% feel more emphasis on theory is needed. 12 Suggestions for improving trainings There is a need to establish a functioning sharing and mutual development network of trainers with adequate funding for the networking in order to facilitate joint learning and development. International Organisations need to procure training through transparent competitive processes: they do this when they buy computers, why not when buying training. A structured dialogue needs to be developed between non-formal (ngo and civil society based) training and formal education in order to achieve better synergy. Training programmes need to concentrate more on assisting people to establish sustainable, democratic peace than analysing the causes of conflict. We know what the causes of conflict are. It is the causes of peace that we have difficulty with. All this requires a much more future focused approach. In true democracies, conflict and peace exist together. There can be no sustainable peace without conflict. A positive exchange of experience and more goal-oriented work is needed. Without gathering experiences, the same mistakes will be repeated. - - - - 13 Cooperation with other organizations A total of 7 respondents indicate active membership in a network of organizations. Notably the CPS rate their communication with a network as excellent, while MFATC, NRC, LNU and NPA rate their communication as good. NORDEM sees their communication as satisfactory while only CCM views it as poor. 78% of those who are actively collaborating in a network have had specific contact on training related issues with 5 or more organizations within the last year. 67% have found the collaboration very effective, while 33% have found it somewhat effective. 14 Some concrete suggestions for improvements of network communication were also made in the survey: - Mapping of potential partners and overlapping needs. Sustainable organisation with clearly defined goals. Organisations with large funding possibilities need to understand that running effective networks require at least two things: that the networks produce activities which satisfy the real needs of the members and that sufficient funding is made available to manage and administer the network as well as for participation in network activities. Most of the people involved in nonformal training are connected with organisations that have very fragile economies with insufficient funds or resources to allow trainers to participate in non-income generating activities. More active participation by to bring people in contact for discussion of best practice. Easier access to experiences. There is no use in writing everything down and sharing it on a webpage. Organizations/trainers don't have the capacity for this. It is more important to create a meeting ground and training for trainers. - Impact assessment All organizations evaluate their trainings. 58% prefer using questionnaires in their evaluation, while 25% use interviews and 17% use other methods. Some of the methods mentioned under other are continuous feedback, and action research evaluation. 15 Conclusions The conducted survey with 11 respondents hardly provides grounds for conclusive remarks regarding the state of Adult Training and Education for International and Intra-national Interventions for Peacebuilding, Conflict Transformation, Mediation and Crisis Management in Norway. However, some tendencies can be observed. 6 of the respondents indicate deployment for Peacebuilding Interventions in conflict areas abroad as one of the objectives of their training. This number is somewhat surprising considering that some of the major developmental organizations (Red Cross, Save the Children, Norwegian Church Aid, Norwegian Peoples Aid, Norad etc), who arguably have activities similar to or relevant for Peacebuilding Intervention, did not take part in the survey. Part of the explanation can possibly be related to terminology used in the survey Peacebuilding Intervention is not a commonly used term in Norway. Some answers might therefore represent an approximation to these terms, rather than the actual thing. Training for deployment also doesn’t say anything about the capacity deploy. Many of the organizations surveyed provide training for others, and might therefore be providing training for people deploying without having the capacity or desire to deploy themselves. Human Rights, Conflict Analysis and Mediation/Facilitation are key topics for training in Norway. This is reflected both in the responses to this survey and the general emphasis of both Norwegian foreign policy and the big developmental organizations on the link between Human rights, Development and Peace. Many view Peacebuidling as the long term work of securing needs and promoting development. Conflict analysis is key for understanding the root causes of conflict, and ensuring a balanced and sustainable commitment. Mediation and facilitation is key when taking the step from long-term peacekeeping activities into a more active Peacemaking role. Norway enjoys a high international profile as one of the largest per capita donors countries for overseas development and as a mediator in various violent conflicts. It is perhaps then no surprise that this emphasis is also reflected by the providers of training in the national context. Methods of training are highly diverse. Although Presentations and lecturing is most commonly used in this survey, the gap between the different forms of teaching is narrow. This goes to show that Norwegian society in general is quite accustomed variation in the forms of education, building for one part on formal lecturing and for other parts on more participatory practices. Annex 1. ARCA Questionnaire 16