Sign In Sign-Up

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

This report has been compiled from documents written by Phil Champain, Sofi Cook, Susan Allen Nan, and Gevork Ter-Gabrielian. Its main points have been developed in consultation with Martin Honeywell, Manana Gurgulia, Batal Kobakhia, David Petrossian, Manana Darjania, Maxim Sheveliov, and Zaur Borov.

Workshop Aim: To progress the organisational development of the Forum and its decision making procedures in order to maximise its impact on the resolution of conflicts in the Caucasus.

Objectives: To review progress of the Forum to date; to share information about conflicts in the Caucasus; to agree the Forum’s operating procedures; to agree priority tasks for the Forum; to strengthen the support networks of core group members.

This workshop was funded by the Berghof Centre for Constructive Conflict Management, Germany. The Caucasus NGO Forum was founded in Nalchik, Russian Federation, in July 1998, at the second workshop of the TACIS and Caritas-funded Confidence-Building Programme for Georgians and Abkhaz. The Forum is a network of civil society organisations working for conflict prevention and resolution throughout the Caucasus.

This workshop was the first meeting of Forum members since the establishment of the network in July 1998. Once again, the planning for the workshop was rigorous. The depth of thinking that went into planning meant that what was done worked, more or less - there were no major crises. Another way of looking at this however would be to say that IA is inflexible in its approach to the programme. Although there were once again core group meetings, IA was still very much in the driving seat. This is perhaps the right approach at this stage of the development of the Forum - when the process needs firm management to enable it to find its feet. However, it was apparent that it is becoming increasingly appropriate for IA to take a step back from its ‘leading role’. This is happening, but the role of IA at the next meeting of the Forum needs careful attention, the steering group and ‘elders’ of the Forum taking a more leading role in the planning and facilitation of the meeting.

As a consequence of the thorough planning and the leading role adopted by IA, the programme was followed pretty much to the book. The only thing that changed was the timing of the excursion which, due to the unavailability of boats, took place on the Saturday rather than the Friday.

The role of IA in the development of the Forum is complex. This is due in part to the make up of the IA team. Every team has its own ‘feel’, despite attempts by some to identify certain characteristics of different team members - leaders, completer-finishers, creative sparks, etc.. Gevork, as Eurasia Programme Manager has pursued a team approach to the development of the Forum and this has brought strength. Gevork’s Armenian nationality has enabled him to gain trust within the group - an ability to identify and empathise with others from the Caucasus, together with an experience of the region born of first hand knowledge. This is balanced in progressive degrees by Sofi who is both Russian and English, and Martin, Phil and Sara who have no personal link with the region but who are boldly labelled ‘members of international organisation’. Martin takes a lead role in the facilitation which complements his role as senior IA staff member. This leadership role does not always complement the leadership role that Gevork takes. Gevork is currently seen very much as the leader of the development of the Forum overall - the one with the vision and the resources behind him to make this vision a reality. When the two leadership roles are expressed simultaneously during the course of a meeting a tension is created. This is often creative but can also create stress within the process. Phil often finds himself in a mediation role when this happens. Sofi is always checking things out with people and giving time to each individual. She brings people in by giving them time. This happens most in the social space in-between the formal sessions of the meeting. Sofi is also the main communication link between the Russian and non-Russian speakers.

This mix of complementarity and tension is also in part due to the different approaches of different individuals. The need for both drive and patience amongst members of the group is mirrored within the facilitation team. The more Martin and Gevork drive ideas forward, the more Phil will empathise with those who may not quite be on board yet and encourage a process of bringing them in. The more participants become frustrated with process and eager to get on to practicalities, the stronger becomes the drive towards realising the vision. This is a dynamic process which works mostly through the intuition of the facilitators and the creative tension created by different approaches.

It is made more complex if some consideration is given to the extent to which these approaches are determined by different approaches to conflict resolution. That is, do we as different individuals hold different views as to how conflicts are resolved, and to what extent does this matter to the peace workers in the Caucasus.and to IA as an organisation. Kevin Clements has recently distributed a paper which identifies four schools of CR. These are further categorised as more or less therapeutic or structural in approach. The paper also begs the question as to whether approaches to CR are radical or conservative. This mirrors a long-standing argument about whether it is socio-political and economic structures that need to change if just peace and development are to occur, or whether the ‘problem’ rests with the ability of individuals to change themselves. Kevin’s paper accepts that many CR practitioners do not fit easily into one box or the other. Where do we stand in the context of the Forum, its meetings and development?

It seems we need to adopt an analytical approach to conflict transformation that challenges the status quo and seeks peace with justice rather than peace at any cost. This approach, however, creates tension with our principle of impartiality and puts the principle of human rights more to the fore. This is, perhaps, what renders the conflict resolution work of NGOs difficult. The Caucasian Forum is encouraging in that it is seeking to empower local NGOs to take greater control of the process of peacebuilding and development in the Caucasus. Those involved can influence those within the political elite and those at grassroots level. It is seeking to develop more effective civil society (relatively well developed now in comparison to, say, Liberia). In this sense it is challenging the hierarchical, dictatorial structures within many republics. At the heart of this vision is the notion that better personal communication between people living in the Caucasus will benefit the process of empowerment. Improved communications between people who share this vision will assist relationship building at a personal, social, community and political level. The purpose of relationship building in this sense is not so much therapeutic in nature but rather aimed at finding new ways of coexisting that promote peace with justice.

As yet, this analysis has not been a very visible dimension of the relationship building within the Forum (interestingly, our Youth workshops developed a project looking at Federalism which could be construed as a form of this kind of relationship building which explicitly centres upon exploring different social, economic and political structures to promote peace with justice). Furthermore, the Elbrus Declaration itself could be seen as more or less a conservative document in that it stresses tolerance, communication and peaceful coexistence without saying anything about seeking different political, social and economic relationships in its desire to help establish peace with justice in the Caucasus. This is inevitable given the extreme sensitivity of such statements and the real danger such wording can cause for those who sign up to it. However, it is significant nevertheless. So far, the Forum has addressed technical issues and ‘soft’ topics such as ‘what is a network?’ But just as CR organisations need to explore the kind of peace they want, so the Forum and the projects it supports need to address this too. Perhaps it will become a criterion for project selection - ie. to what extent is the project seeking new ways of coexistence that promote peace with justice? And what of the role of IA in all this? There is a balance to be struck here between encouraging Forum members to take control of their own process - otherwise is will not be sustainable or effective - and providing sources of different ideas to stimulate and challenge thinking and debate.

One of the first issues to be addressed in the meeting was the induction of new participants. With this aim in mind one of the first sessions was conducted in small groups, each Forum founder-member talking several new members through the process leading up to the creation of the Forum, the Elbrus Declaration, and possibilities he/she sees in future work with the Forum. Besides participants then sharing individual hopes and concerns in attending the meeting, a session followed where a representative of each region gave an update on the stage the conflict in their region has reached; current conflict resolution initiatives; how their work fits into these initiatives and how the Forum could help or hinder in the present situation. These updates were most eloquent in portraying disparities between the regions and in the inner states of participants: some were coming with a lot of pain from a situation which seems to them hopeless. It was, however, remarked by a number of participants that, due to the lack of information-flow and unbiassed media reporting in many regions, news of this kind was hard to come by and extremely valuable. Even those who were least optimistic felt that in keeping channels of communication open there was some hope. In this connection the Forum project to carry out an IT assessment was mentioned. Different types of blockade: economic, communication, military etc. are tools for waging conflicts in the Caucasus. By working on opening up the communications blockade, the Forum actively affects the dynamics of the conflicts by declaring that violence in the form of isolating communities from each other is an unacceptable practice which does not contribute to the resolution of conflicts.This issue is deemed of paramount importance by many Forum members, particularly those who have virtually no communication with the outside world.

It should be noted at this stage that the number of participants was quite significantly higher than was expected. Due to difficulties in communication and travel, it is hard to have a totally accurate list of participants prior to the workshop, and this particular meeting attracted many people who felt they “just had to be there”. The number of participants (over 40 with the organisers and observers) occasionally made it difficult reaching a decision without long debates. The fact that such a high number of regions, including several new regions, from both North and South Caucasus was represented - an important and rare achievement - meant also that so many different and often conflicting interests were involved, again making decision-making a more lengthy and complicated process. The most notable example was the matter of Secretariat location, and ethnicity of Coordinator.

Day 2 marked the official opening of this Forum meeting. Founder-members then proceeded to meditate on achievements of the Forum since its establishment in July 1998. A strong opinion was that essentially many decisions as to the working of the Forum were yet to be made, and that participants were there to make them: points achieved included, however, a small but steady e-mail network, regularly updated by Eldar Zeinalov’s Caucasian news bulletins; a project for an ex-combatants workshop; funding raised to set up a Forum Secretariat and carry out an IT assessment; communication had increased between member NGOs, which served, among other things, to weaken the Abkhazian information blockade and, last but not least, participants’ thinking about, and working on, ideas of NGOs, networks, multilateralism etc. Zaur Borov claims he knew virtually nothing of NGO peacebuilding activity before his participation in the Nalchik workshop; another participant, Zarina, developed a project as a result of that workshop which has now received funding. Thus, a very strong advantage of the Forum - as of other IA workshops - is in empowering participants to develop their ideas into concrete work, and in learning to work together.

The empowerment issue became obvious as work progressed. Differences between participants at the Nalchik workshop and new members remained for some time: new members had no feeling of ownership of the process, asking questions about how IA was planning this or that aspect: towards the end these differences were lessened by the participative, inter-active, psycho-dynamic nature of the workshop. Inevitably, some newcomers perhaps never quite found their niche, whilst others appeared as if they had always been Forum members and brought in many valuable ideas. Indeed, the issue of membership and relations with those outside the process became the theme of one of the working groups.

Martin gave a presentation on characteristics and models of networks, getting people thinking about what a network was and what purposes it could usefully serve. This led on nicely to a discussion about the potential of networks to help in conflict prevention and resolution, and to Phil’s “networking game”. This involved each organisation establishing its “base” (a chair!) somewhere in the room, leaving one of its members at the base, whilst the other moves around the room with a coloured ball of wool and speaks to representatives of other organisations. If people find that their organisations have concerns in common, and can usefully communicate, the “migrant” representative ties the wool around the other organisation’s chair: as the game progresses, a bright multi-coloured web emerges. Despite conversations becoming more hurried and less involved towards the end of the game, the exercise undoubtedly served to bring participants together and show them a number of common concerns. It also served as an informal information-sharing session, allowing participants to learn what their partners were doing without the limitations, and in more condensed form, than in a plenary. As a result, for instance, partners in Nalchik became acquainted with the concept of a press-club from partners in Yerevan and Stepanakert, and began to plan setting up a similar enterprise in Nalchik.

After this exercise, participants split into 4 working groups on the following themes:

• the Forum’s overall strategy;
• the Forum’s relations with other similar structures and membership criteria (boundaries);
• projects to be supported by the Forum;
• administrative issues - Secretariat location and Coordinator.

The third day was spent working in groups, with reports back to plenary.

Zhanna Krikorova, Oleg Damenia, Manana Gurgulia, Aslan Mirzoyev, Lisa Omarkhadzhiyeva, (Martin Honeywell, Sofi Cook)

The strategy group spent some time discussing the concept of strategy as such - it could be pointed out as a shortcoming of this group’s work that it felt it was constantly impinging on other groups’ territory, not feeling clear about what was strategy and what was specific planning. In our planning process we had envisaged this group as a fundraising strategy group working on financial strategy, fundraising priorities, funders to approach and budgetary requirements. In fact this group attempted to develop the main directions of the Forum’s work, settling finally on the following points:

• internal and external (relations with GOs, media etc) communication;
• support for projects in keeping with the Elbrus Declaration;
• an informative and research capacity;
• fundraising;
• activities directed towards healing the wounds left by wars;
• cultural and educational exchanges.

Zhanna suggested that the Forum might attempt to build up a Fund from which to sponsor projects and exchange visits. This Fund might be created on the basis of some commercial activity, or the Caucasian governments may be asked to contribute to it as a peacebuilding gesture. Another issue discussed was the danger of the Forum’s competing with its individual members for funding and the necessity to leave certain local concerns to the individual member organisations.

Roman Gashayev, Alexander Dzadziev, Liudmila Timonicheva, Liudmila Pavlichenko, Liudmila Shepelenko, (Elena Sadovskaya, Phil Champain, Susan Allen Nan, Lada Zimina, Remko De Kok, David Newton)

This group decided that the Forum would be open to all Caucasian NGOs which accept the principles of the Elbrus Declaration. NGOs applying for membership would be asked to fill in a form, which would include information on the Forum, membership criteria and Forum Secretariat and members’ contact details. Organisations joining would have to answer questions on their activities and give suggestions for areas of cooperation with the Forum. The issue of relations with those who were not attending Forum meetings and felt left out was addressed - it was decided that Forum members should make the effort to keep other NGOs updated on Forum activities and maintain good relations with them. Relations with other networks were likewise discussed during Elena Sadovskaya’s later presentation on the UNHCR CISConf Process.

While the Forum didn’t make any specific decisions concerning its relations with the UNHCR CIS Conflict Management Working Group, it was felt that this Working Group and the Caucasus Forum will be similar networks interrelated in different ways.

Inga Tuzhba, Kakha Dzebisashvili, Adlan Dinayev, Sharip Samsuradov, Umatgiri Dakhkilgov, Dina Alborova, Alan Parastayev, Vladimir Saveliev, Vusal Radzhabli, Sabina Masimova

This group mainly discussed the mechanism for judging projects submitted to the Forum for support. It must be said that the specific nature of this support was not fully clarified during the workshop: possibilities suggested were financial support, organisational support and granting of references. It was decided that a council of experts, including one expert from each region, would give each project submitted marks out of 5 in each of the following criteria:

• timeliness of the project;
• effectiveness - including the number of beneficiaries;
• number of NGOs from different regions involved in the project;
• does the project target / address conflict prevention or resolution needs?
• competence of the partners who propose the project in that kind of work;
• support for beginner NGOs;
• is the financial justification sound?

This mechanism was branded “bureaucratic” by some participants, yet the group claimed it had grown out of the fierce interest which the judgement of projects had excited, and the repeated demands for fair judgement. A debate arose around the minimum number of regions participating in Forum projects. The Abkhaz particularly claimed they did not wish to be forced into joint projects with Georgians only and demanded that at least 3 regions should participate in each Forum project. This was not accepted by all, however - many felt that bilateral projects could, in certain circumstances, be extremely beneficial and should have the right to compete for Forum support with multilateral projects.

Zaur Borov, Enver Kisriev, David Petrossian, Oleg Mazukabzov, (Gevork Ter-Gabrielian)

This group decided that it would be necessary to create two positions of responsibility for the administration of the Forum: the Coordinator and Representative Secretary. The Representative Secretary would rotate in order to give members from each region an opportunity to work in the Secretariat. A heated debate over the location of the Secretariat occurred in plenary, Oleg extolling the virtues of his native Sochi (convenient for travel and communication; removed from conflict zones and situated on ‘neutral’ territory), which, it was felt, was nevertheless lacking an NGO community and too business-minded because it is a vacation resort). Others argued for Nalchik (strong local member-organisation Adige Hase; proximity to N. Caucasus regions which the Coordinator will be forced to visit personally due to lack of communications; experience of ethnic dispute without overt violent conflict), which has the disadvantage of being further from Abkhazia than Sochi), whilst some suggested London. It was finally decided by the group to use Nalchik as the first location for the Secretariat office. Adige Hase was to be of the utmost help in setting up the office and providing information and support. The first Representative Secretary would thus be from Kabardino-Balkaria and would be in office for 2 months. The period of rotation after this time is yet to be fixed. Since the number of participating regions is high, a long period would mean that some regions have to wait over 2 years to send a Representative Secretary to the Secretariat. On the other hand an overly short term in office would mean that the Secretary did not have time to get enough experience, and that new people constantly had to be trained.

Perhaps the biggest debate arose around the position ofCoordinator; or, more precisely, about his/her ethnic background. Members of IA were suggested as impartial, yet this was not considered satisfactory, since they are not resident in the Caucasus. It appeared clear in any case that a representative of any Caucasian region would meet with some sort of opposition.

This debate was a lengthy one and, furthermore, did not appear to be getting anywhere. It was decided to appoint a special ad hoc group which would resolve this issue. That group was: David Petrossian, Manana Gurgulia, Manana Dardzhania, Enver Kisriev, Alexander Dzadziev, Vusal Radzhabli, Zhanna Krikorova, Gevork Ter-Gabrielian.

On Saturday 20 March the group announced its decision. They proposed Maxim Sheveliov as Coordinator. Maxim was from the Riazan region of Russia, a social psychologist currently studying for a PhD at the Academy of Government of the President of the Russian Federation. Gevork knew him and could vouch for him. It was suggested that Maxim be appointed Coordinator for a trial period of 3 months. Most participants appeared to feel relief at this decision, and were satisfied that Maxim would not hold the interests of any region above those of another. Maxim was invited to visit the last day of the meeting. Elena Sadovskaya from the Centre for Conflict Management, Kazakhstan, gave a presentation on the UNHCR CISConf process - the working groups set up as a result of the UNHCR CIS Conference in 1995, including the working group on Conflict Management, of which CCM and International Alert are now lead agencies. The main aim of this working group is to set up a CIS-wide network of conflict prevention/resolution NGOs. It was felt that the Caucasus Forum could form a part of this future network, as would a similar Central Asian Forum, the EAWARN network etc.

The rest of Saturday (the penultimate day) was devoted to a sea excursion. A boat was hired and most participants joined the excursion, which gave ample opportunity for informal discussion of issues both serious and light. Some, as for instance the Chechen participants, had an opportunity to go into open sea for the first time in their lives. Members spoke about their homelands and experiences, told jokes, took photographs. That evening there was Caucasian traditional and modern dancing and singing - a most important part of these workshops, along with the games that are played most evenings!

Maxim arrived on the last day and was informed of the Forum’s decision to consider him as Coordinator. After being briefed on the Forum’s activities Maxim spoke about himself and participants asked him questions. His answers appeared to satisfy them and the decision to appoint him as Coordinator during a 3-month trial period was confirmed. It was noted that his weaknesses were also strengths: his lack of specialist knowledge on the Caucasus meant he was not yet involved in the politics and biases of the region, his commitment in Moscow (not one which would interfere with this work) meant he was not viewed as belonging to this or that Caucasian culture. He was felt to be giving honest and open answers; had worked a little on issues such as rehabilitation as a psychologist and, most importantly, appeared genuinely to want to do the job. He was warned that the Caucasus was not the safest of regions but was assured of members’ support. His demeanor was impressively professional, and his answers to the questions were succinct and persuasive. Perhaps he won the hearts of the participants when asked if he was courageous enough to face the dangers of the Caucasus, replying that from a distance, i.e. from Moscow, they seem exaggeratedly more impressive than when one is on the spot.

The Steering group of the Forum was then widened to include the regions which had not previously taken part. The Steering Group now consists of:

1. Manana Gurgulia - Abkhazia

2. Batal Kobakhia - Abkhazia

3. George Khutsishvili - Georgia

4. Nodar Sardzhveladze - Georgia

5. Aslan Mirzoyev - Kabardino-Balkaria

6. Oleg Damenia - Adigea

7. Eldar Zeinalov - Azerbaijan

8. David Petrossian - Armenia

9. Zhanna Krikorova - Nagorno-Karabakh

10. Roman Gashayev - Chechnia

11. Elisaveta Omarkhadzhiyeva - Ingushetia

12. Alexander Dzadziyev - North Ossetia

13. Alan Parastayev - South Ossetia

14. Enver Kisriev - Dagestan

15. Liudmila Pavlichenko - Rostov region.

In a final working session it became apparent that there were a number of decisions which had been made in the course of the meeting, which needed to be summed up, and also a number of decisions which would need to be made, but was impossible to finalise at the present time.

1. The Coordinator shall have the following duties: communications between members of the Forum; coordination and organisation of events, compilation of the Forum database. It was decided to nominate Maxim Shevelev as Coordinator for a trial period of 3 months. During this period the Coordinator will be based in Nalchik and will enjoy the support of our partners in Kabardino-Balkaria. The Coordinator shall commence his duties on 10 April 1999. In his 3-month trial period he must create a Forum office, assemble a delegation and prepare a visit to the authorities of Kabardino-Balkaria; also help in the organisation of the ex-combatants’ workshop.

2. The Representative Secretary shall have the same duties as the Coordinator and will support the Coordinator. The two decide how the work is to be distributed between them.

3. The Representative Secretary is accountable to the Coordinator. The first Representative Secretary will be chosen from our Nalchik partners and will work for two months, after which Representative Secretaries will rotate by region in alphabetical order (see Decisions Remaining also).

4. The Coordinator is accountable to the Forum.

5. Pending any further decision, the Steering Committee of the Forum, which was widened and modified at the Sochi meeting, will continue as the decision-making body between Forum meetings.

6. The three main tasks of the Coordinator during his 3-month trial period shall be:

- to create an office in Nalchik;

- to develop an action-plan for providing communication between Forum members;

- to organise the ex-combatants workshop in Nalchik.

7. Membership of the Caucasus NGO Forum is free and open to all NGOs which accept the principles of the Elbrus Declaration and are situated in the Caucasus.

8. Members of the Forum shall be obliged to make the main actions and decisions of the Forum available to other NGOs.

9. The working groups of the Forum shall continue to exist and work on various ideas between meetings. Participation in working groups is free to all Forum members. There are four groups: on administrative issues, Forum strategy, evaluation and support of projects submitted to the Forum by members and non-members, and finally on membership and relations with other NGOs and networks of NGOs.

10. Criteria for judging projects shall be as proposed by the working group on projects (see also Decisions Remaining).

11. The Forum has carried out a number of activities since it came into existence (as stated in a separate list).

12. Official documents of the Forum are the Elbrus Declaration and documents adopted at the second Forum meeting: the press-release, telegram of concern over the explosion in North Ossetia and list of participants. The present list of Forum decisions is an unofficial working document.

13. Non-governmental international observer organisations from Forum meetings are granted the status of public trustees of the Forum.

1. The period of rotation for Representative Secretaries after the first one from Nalchik has not been decided - suggestions are one, one and a half or two months.

2. There was a suggestion that only projects developed by three or more sides be considered as priority projects - or even be considered at all - by the Forum. There is no consensus on this issue.

3. How does the Forum support projects? This has not been settled, but there are a number of suggestions.

4. Should non-Caucasian organisations working in the Caucasus have the right to membership in the Forum?

5. What is the procedure for accepting new members after they have filled in a form and submitted an application?

The relationship building element of this workshop was equal to if not of more importance than the outputs (see Relationship Building - Some Additional Remarks below). Clearly the concept of the Forum had to progress and outputs were necessary. However, there was a strong sense that we were starting from scratch, with a new group of people, many of whom didn’t know each other. There were many more new faces than old - not what we had expected. Yet there were a number of factors which allowed us to achieve what we did at this meeting:

There is a group of about 8 people , most of whom were at Nalchik, but some new faces (eg. David Petrossian) joined this group during the meeting. This group provides leadership and strength at the centre of the Forum.

This was a really important and lasting success, which held its own during the meeting to any challenge that came its way. It is a beacon for the Forum and acted as such during the meeting

Although new to the Forum, participants had been acquainted with the Elbrus Declaration and so were not new to the idea.

The process worked and for this the facilitators and organisers need to be recognised. The planning was thorough. The interpretation was excellent. Having Lada around to give Sofi a rest and to do the admin was very important. Martin and Phil held the overall process. Gevork provided more direction for the overall project and acted as ‘Godfather’ to all the participants. Martin and Phil discussed their different styles, coming to the conclusion that it is important to have facilitators who complement each other - this is not the same as having the same approach. Martin’s more ‘task orientated’ approach helped Phil to focus on enabling the participants to share and shape the process. You could say that Phil’s ‘looseness’ enabled Martin to be ‘tighter’ and Martin’s tightness enable Phil to be looser. We mirrored the participants in this way, providing enough variety for each person to find their own place during the meeting. Gevork’s Caucasian identity enabled him to provide leadership and direction in a way that did not appear as imposition. This was another important ingredient to the team of organisers - the different degrees of identity a ‘insider/outsider’ - from Gevork and Lada to Sofi to Phil to Martin. We all act as checks on each other and therefore on the process.

There are clear leaders in the group. This needs to be nurtured and encouraged. It was also increasingly evident that the group was developing its own way of working and of dealing with decision making. There was a key point towards the end of the meeting when Martin did not force a vote on decisions but held out for consensus. This was important in that it helped the group come together through decision making. This way of working will develop more through further meetings. Care should be taken to nurture this way of working. Enver said a significant thing during the evaluation - that what he liked about the meeting was that the ideas were coming from the inside. The Forum is beginning to generate its own ideas. The leadership and direction should help develop this further.

At first, the general inclination was to make decisions only in the plenary format, by building consensus. However, gradually realizing that decisions should be realistic and operationallly sound, members adopted a more efficient style of creating ad hoc groups for making decisions. As suggested by Lisa Omarkhadzhieva, the amount of trust invested in ad hoc groups which propose decisions for adoption reflects the increasing amount of trust of all in each other.

Relationship building develops most effectively when focused on achieving a joint task. Furthermore, these joint tasks need to have a life beyond the duration of the event itself. The task in this case is setting up the Forum. The task for the Youth workshop was to develop projects around themes that participants themselves identified. IA’s recent media workshop in Monrovia did not plan to develop a joint task beyond the life of the training itself. However, our media project in Liberia plans to develop a resource centre for journalists. Setting up this resource centre could become the joint task that the journalists currently undertaking training should address. This will affect the way in which the training events are organised and the ways in which the relationship building can help the journalists own the process of developing the resource centre. It is not that training itself is of no value, but that its value is limited if it is not accompanied by a process which is addressing the achievement of a longer term task. It can be argued that even one-off CR training workshops are limited in their ability to help participants learn if they are not accompanied by a longer term task, since the most effective learning is experiential and therefore any CR skills that address relationship building should be learnt through real practice of relationship building - and this can only be achieved by addressing a ‘longer term task’. This argument points to the limited value of ‘pure training’ and the value of longer term learning processes which require facilitation. This is the strength of what is happening in the Eurasia programme at present. Phil feels very strongly that this approach should be strengthened and built upon and that any future events which IA is part of ask the question ‘What is the longer term task which participants will address together?’ It may not be apparent what this task is at the beginning of the meeting (the Forum idea was hatched at the first meeting in Sochi). However, some effort should be spent in helping the idea to emerge.

1. Plan thoroughly but hold your plan lightly
1. Use a facilitation team whose members have different but complimentary skills and approaches
1. Ensure that the workshop rests within a longer term project
1. Use the longer term project as a focus for relationship building
1. Question whether the longer term project is progressing peace with justice rather than ‘peace within the status quo’
1. Question the role of IA in the process - leader, facilitator, organiser, supporter, funder, visionary?

Here are the assumptions formulated in the original proposal, and some reflections on them:

• Many aspects of conflicts in the Caucasus can be tackled, and confidence built more easily, in a multilateral environment than in a bilateral one, given the divergent interests of the actors directly involved in a conflict.

Clearly this is supported by the enthusiastic responses of participants. With at least five conflicts represented there, these differences were not the focus. Instead everyone pulled together for the purposes of creating the Forum. This would have been impossible if it were just a Georgian-Abkhaz Forum, or Chechen-Russian, or Armenian-Azeri, or Georgian-Ossetian, etc.

• In a multilateral format, the interests of NGOs from different localities will balance each other; they will create coalitions to lobby their interests within the Forum, and therefore no unilateral pressure will be possible.

We are reminded here of Zhanna's idea of seeking governmental support for the Forum-- and the implications this would have for the other unrecognized republics. Rather than this being an Armenian-Azeri issue, it was handled as a Forum issue.

• Isolation and disempowerment felt by the overwhelming majority of NGOs in the Caucasus will be overcome; new projects for which NGOs separately do not have leverage to implement may become possible if their efforts are combined, such as in the case of the ex-combatants workshop.

This is what we wrote in the proposal: Some current projects could receive a completely new peace-relevant edge if given a wider Caucasian profile. For example, there already exist Associations of Former Combatants, mainly concerned with the social and psychological needs of their members. However, if their members were to meet with their former adversaries in a multilateral setting, these associations could start to move from a setting for social refuge and xenophobia towards centres for anti-war movements. Former combatants command high respect within their communities and from their governments; they have strong links with some leading political parties. However, it will be impossible to make them into engines of peace unless their activities take on a more international nature within the Caucasian setting.

The meeting of ex-combatants from all over the region makes it possible for meetings that could not be imagined happening bilaterally. (The OSCE tried to do a Georgian-Abkhaz ex-combatants meeting in May 1998, but could not arrange such a bilateral meeting.)

• Twisting and distorting facts is more difficult and less effective in a multilateral environment than in a bilateral one.

This is evidenced by the reports on conflict developments from the perspective of each region that were shared orally.

• If the issue of the final political configuration of states and their borders is separated from the issue of keeping and deepening peace, the role of neighbours in advancing peace by overcoming isolation and building bridges across the conflict boundaries becomes essential.

The Forum is clearly about helping NGOs that deepen peace, and is clearly not about final political configurations of states and borders. The Forum is a bridge that connects neighbors from all over the region to support their work for deepening peace.

• Because of all of the above, multilateralism makes compromise easier to achieve; however, it constrains the depth of the issues discussed and agreements reached.

We wrote in the original proposal: The drawback of multilateralism is that it makes the levels of agreement 'superficial'. The point of agreement is usually formulated in very vague terms so that every party has a latitude to interpret it at least slightly differently, in a way which suits their internal political purposes. This makes the agreements detached from everyday actions, and sometimes irrelevant. As different from bilateral ones, multilateral agreements are not so much violated or broken as freely interpreted and twisted. That is why they hold usually only at those points where the interests of all the parties strongly coincide. In the best case, they represent the point of strong universal commitment; in the worst case, they are just a piece of paper.

Going back to the reports from the regions presented in the beginning of the week, depth of discussion was in fact constrained, but by the time limits for presentations more than the multilateral nature of the discussions. It is not clear that, given more time, the discussion would have been limited in its depth. Discussions and agreements about the Forum were fairly in depth, until they were rushed at the end. While the trade off seems intuitively plausible, one can recall only counterexamples from the week.

Is the Elbrus Declaration a vague document to be interpreted freely and to be twisted ("broken") by those that signed it? It seems that the Forum founders have found an overarching goal that they have a deep agreement to work on together. There was strong personal committment by individuals in Sochi, and efforts to really understand each other and create a Forum that would serves the overarching goals all participants support.

The letter of condolence written to the North Ossetian people is another example of a piece of paper that did allow discussion of deeper differences even while finding a compromise langauge that all could live with. The multilateral nature of having IA there too helped take this discussion further, even though just in a small group.

• Given all this, perhaps the next stage in deepening the peace process would be, after a multilateral agreement is achieved, to continue working bilaterally.

We should definitely watch to see if the multilateral Forum helps support bilateral work. Recall the discussion of whether projects must be multilateral or if two sided projects could be supported by the Forum.

The workshop strongly reflected the fact that the Caucasus NGO Forum is on the road to becoming a powerful public forum in the Caucasus. One of the less fortunate examples was the echo generated by the workshop within Sochi’s law enforcement agencies: the Chechen participants were held up at the Sochi police station, in addition to several detentions on their way to Sochi in the process of which they were fingerprinted, searched, closely questioned etc. Needless to say for the young people this was hardly a pleasant or reassuring experience. The reason for this, apart from the present tension between the Stavropol region and Chechnya, was Laman Az’s participation in a de-mining course in Germany the previous year, as a result of which the youth NGO had become registered with the Russian authorities as a “terrorist mine-planting” organisation which had attended “dubious military exercises” in Germany.

Another example was that after the workshop several NGO representatives who did not have a chance to participate in it sent their recriminating messages to the Forum participants, on one hand, greeting the Forum, on the other, complaining about the fact that they had not been invited. This emphasized once more the necessity to work out a clear strategy and mechanism of relations of Forum members with other relevant organizations. Unfortunately, the situation is so in the Caucasus that a mere invitation / lack of invitation to an event may be perceived as crucial in having / not having a relationship with a project. Not receiving a personal invitation is sometimes interpreted as reason enough to declare the Forum against this or that initiative, position, or locality’s participation in it.

There is a danger that by declaring its openness, on one hand, and at the same time restricting the amount of participants at any event, on the other, the Forum may increasingly leave an impression of a hypocritical organization.

On a more positive note, the Forum was positively reflected in the local press and the members took a commonly prepared statement for press with them to distribute it in their localities.

In general, it can be expected that the more Forum institutionalizes, the higher the danger of its ‘stepping on the toes’ of different, and often unexpected, actors in the Caucasian politics. In this respect, it is noteworthy also that a leader of a well-known organization in conflict prevention field from Moscow declared in a passage in a published article that the Forum is essentially an ‘anti-Russian’ initiative. Thus, attempts of politicizing the Forum are bound to increase, which only emphasizes the necessity to step up a PR programme--which will become another task for the Coordinator’s office.

The identity of the Forum is something to be constantly recreated by the work of its members and its Coordinator’s office. As a network, the Forum is fluid in structure, its boundaries difficult to determine. However, as a very specific network of NGOs working on peace and conflict issues in the Caucasus, it has an inherent identity. Its identity strengthens with the way its tradition of decision-making evolves, and with the types of matters it deals with as opposed to those which it leaves unaddressed or considers outside its scope of activities and / or mandate. This is a network devoted to action rather than merely to research and / or information exchange, even though it has a clear component of an information / telecommunications network, which is bound to become even more paramount with the work of the Coordinator’s office. Perhaps the biggest success of this workshop was that the Forum avoided the pitfall of bureaucratizing while on the road to institutionalization, and at the same time strengthened its identity without bureaucratizing. This, however, is a difficult tradeoff, a narrow balancing line, which should be renegotiated with every new Forum event. 

Overall Aim of this Meeting:

To progress the organisational development of the Forum and its decision making procedures in order to maximise its impact on the resolution of conflicts in the Caucasus.

To review progress of the Forum to date

To share information about conflicts in the Caucasus

To agree the Forum’s operating procedures

To agree priority tasks for the Forum

To strengthen the support networks of core group members

Gevork Ter-Gabrielian, Phil Champain, Martin Honeywell

Sofi Cook

Lada Zimina

Manana G., Manana D., Zaur, Gevork, Sofi, Martin, Phil, Lada

Elena Sadovskaya, Remko De Kok, Susan Allen Nan

There will be a social event during the evening when members of the Forum can meet each other. Some will be new to the Forum, others familiar through colleagues who attended the Nalchick meeting. The majority will be founding members of the Forum who have been through the formation process.

1. Introductions

2. Aims and agenda for the meeting

3. Methods to be used

4. Induction - Those who attended the Nalchick meeting will describe the process they went through to reach the ratification of the Elbrus declaration and will share something of their understanding of the Forum. (groups). Key Questions: (1) How have you arrived at this stage of the Forum’s development? (2) What will the Forum add to your work?

1. Revisiting the aims of the Forum and the Elbrus Declaration

2. Setting Groundrules for the meeting

3. Sharing individual expectations and concerns for this meeting

4. Updates on conflict in the Caucasus - individual contributions with questions for clarification. Key Questions (1) What stage is your conflict at? (2) What are the current CR initiatives, if any? (3) Where does your work fit in, if anywhere? (4) How could the Forum help/hinder , if at all?

1.Opening ceremony to mark Forum in progress

2.Update on Forum activities (plenary)

Key Question: In what ways has the Forum added value, if at all, to what you have done since the Nalchick meeting?

3. Addressing key issues, if any, raised regarding the Forum and conflicts in the Caucasus during yesterday’s PM discussion.

1. Networks - characteristics and models. Presentation & discussion, including starting discussion on how decisions are to be made in the Forum (plenary)

2. Creating a web/network - an activity exploring the links between the work of different organisations. From a fixed place in the room, each organisation represented at the meeting will visit representatives of other organisations with the task of finding out how, if at all, they are linked together. By the use of string, a visual picture of a network will emerge.

3. Debriefing the activity. Key Questions (1) What links did you make/didn’t you make? (2) What does this activity teach us about networks? (3) What are the key issues for the Forum? (4) How will decisions be made by the Forum?

4. Identifying working groups. Key Question: What are the key issues for the Forum?

Possible topics for working groups:

• administrative issues for the Forum;
• the Forum’s relations with other similar structures;
• determining priority activities for the Forum;
• the Forum’s strategy.

Since it is important for the Forum to resolve a number of specific issues, it is suggested that the working groups are given the space to come up with specific suggestions to be discussed in plenary. The plenary will then adopt these suggestions, perhaps with some editing. Participants are requested to give some thought in advance as to which working group they would like to join. The topics discussed by the working groups may in fact differ from those set out above. It seems to the organisers, however, that a number of points are crucial and should receive some attention. These are:

• Administrative issues for the Forum: the functions of the Secretariat; its location; who will be part of the Secretariat; discussion around the Westminster Foundation for Democracy project.
• The Forum’s relations with other similar structures: criteria for membership; a strategy for members of the Forum to work with other similar organisations; the Forum’s relation to other networks; examples of other networks such as the UNHCR CIS network and FEWER.
• Determining priority activities for the Forum: possible criteria for project selection: does the project adhere to the aims set out in the Elbrus declaration; will it make a significant contribution to peacebuilding in any of the Caucasian conflicts. Discussion of existing projects. Discussion of projects of all-Caucasian significance: the ex-combatants’ meeting, cultural visits, aid to lesser developed regions and organisations etc.
• The Forum’s strategy: a financial strategy for the Forum; determining the Forum’s budgetary requirements; creating a plan for determining and approaching funders; elaborating an advocacy strategy; relations with business firms.

Setting up the working groups/starting to work

Excursion

1. De-briefing.

2. Working groups

3. Presentations (plenary)

4. Adopting Action Points - making decisions

1. De-briefing.

2. Working Groups contd. - finalising presentations/adopting action points from each group.

3. Next Steps - who will take what forward?

4. Evaluation

5. Closing Ceremony/Social

Close