Towards a
European Civil Peace Service (ECPS)
Open proposal for discussion
Contents
1. Background
1.1.
1.2.
Potentials of civil society peace interventions
Current gaps in related EU policies and instruments
2. The proposal for a European Civil Peace Service (ECPS)
2.1
2.2
2.3
Goals and principles
Possible fields of action and added value
Personnel, training and recruitment
3. Institutional arrangements and funding
4. Recommendations to the European Parliament
Co-authored by
Jochen Schmidt (Forum Civil Peace Service, forumZFD) and
Alessandro Rossi (Nonviolent Peaceforce, NP)
Brussels, October 2009
1
1. Background
1.1. Potentials of civil society peace interventions
Since the end of the Cold War, there has been a growing global consciousness about the
need to address and prevent human suffering caused by armed conflict. As a result, the
international community, and the European Union in particular, have begun to develop a
more diverse set of instruments and partnerships. By now there is a broad consensus
that the complexity of today's conflicts needs a response beyond traditional security
policy approaches. Progressively more attention is being paid to questions of good
governance, the socio-economic foundations of peace, and issues of justice and
reconciliation.
Nowadays, a variety of international actors with different mandates, functions and
comparative advantages works both on the causes and the destructive impacts of largescale organised violence. At the same time, many governments, multilateral agencies
and bilateral donors recognise the important role non-state actors and active civil society
play in violence prevention and in rebuilding war-torn societies.1 Coordination among
various actors and the sequencing of different interventions are major issues, but fall
outside the scope of this paper. Instead, we offer a proposal on how the EU could better
mobilise European civil society to contribute practically and improve its overall capacity
to support peace and reconciliation processes in countries affected by violent conflict.
Among the illustrated actors traditionally police and military were in charge of protecting
citizens' security against internal and external threats. Consequently, it does not come as
a surprise that in European countries the infrastructure and capacity of these institutions
is most developed. Nevertheless, already the recruitment and deployment of police,
judicial or civil administration experts abroad, e.g. for civilian crisis management
missions, regularly poses problems to EU Member States. The structural reason for this
capacity shortfall is that civilian state-building support outside the borders of Member
States constitutes a relatively new phenomenon.2
1
See for instance World Bank (2006); Council of the EU (2008), page 9.
2
On how the EU might better access and mobilise the wide range of civilian capacities that exist outside
governments for civilian crisis management, see Gourlay/Fischer (2004).
2
From a socio-historical perspective, the fields of humanitarian relief and development
cooperation are relatively new, if for instance compared with military defence institutions.
Still, the area of actors and functions least developed is the one specifically aimed at
preventing and managing armed conflict, and sustaining peace after large-scale
organized violence has ended, i.e. peacebuilding.3 Even though the peacebuilding sector
is growing rapidly, it still lacks the institutional infrastructure, financial resources, and
qualified personnel needed to maximise its potential in violence prevention.
Levels and instruments of existing conflict interventions
Currently, the lion's share of European governments' and international agencies' civilian
support interventions for peacebuilding and state-building aim at the top level of the
state-society pyramid. Credible external actors can make valuable contributions to
peacemaking in track 1 or 1 ½ diplomacy and mediation between conflicting parties (e.g.
Annan in Kenya or Ahtisaari in Aceh). Also for institution-building tasks, after a ceasefire
or peace accord has been reached, official international peace missions enjoy a
comparative advantage, for example in reforming the security sector, the judicial system
or supporting the (re)construction of a functioning civil administration.
While this kind of top-level external support is often necessary and helpful, multiple
conflict factors at lower levels of the state-society pyramid are often either neglected or
insufficiently addressed. This may have devastating consequences on overall
peacebuilding efforts because in an unstable setting with unresolved conflict issues, local
events can easily spread and lead to new rounds of violent escalation. In addition, for
parts of societies which have suffered directly from the experience of war, an official
peace agreement does not necessarily address their personal grievances, give a feeling
of justice or prepare them for reconciliation with former enemies.
3
This definition of peacebuilding has been borrowed from Worldbank (2006).
3
Strengthening sustainable, bottom-up peacebuilding
As the conclusions of the Reflecting on Peace Practice (RPP) project confirm, bottom-up
initiatives that involve larger parts of the society are needed in addition to key people
and personal change.4 Through their proximity to local socio-cultural dynamics, civil
society actors are best placed when it comes to peacebuilding efforts at the middle-range
and grassroots levels of the state-society pyramid. They play a crucial role in the process
of rebuilding the social fabric by dealing with the violent past, addressing post-war
trauma, overcoming enemy images, promoting respect for human rights, and advocating
for the rule of law, accountability and democratic participation. In short, effective
peacebuilding needs various parallel processes at different levels of the state-society
pyramid. An end to escalated violence does not necessarily guarantee for lasting stability.
Thus, investment in building conflict-resilient societies is a long-term endeavour, but one
that pays off and is significantly more cost-efficient in the long-run.
To be clear from the outset, we follow the principle that conflict resolution and social
change cannot be achieved through outside intervention, but require local ownership and
people's active participation. As in development cooperation, it is national actors that
should take the lead in peacebuilding. That said, in conflict settings ownership can have
problematic dimensions as different parts of society might be deeply divided and civil
society actors themselves belong (or are perceived as belonging) to conflicting parties.
While civil society peacebuilding should build on locally-owned initiatives, international
third-party interventions can play an important supportive role.
If accepted as non-partisan, professional peace consultants can cross ethnic and
geographical divides more easily and communicate with all constituencies. Internationals
in particular often enjoy a greater operating range and leverage for initiating peace and
dialogue processes. In war-torn societies this can be a critical asset to empower local
actors to become agents for peaceful change.
In short, civil society peace interventions can make an important contribution to
locally-driven bottom-up peacebuilding and thus contribute to sustainable
peace and the prevention of further violent escalations.
1.2. Current gaps in related EU policies and instruments
EU external policy in light of the Lisbon Treaty
The European Union's structures in external affairs might soon undergo important change
with the likely entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Notably, the introduction of a
European External Action Service could potentially contribute to more inter-institutional
coherence, and this reform should be used to advance the institutional infrastructure for
stronger civilian capacities for crisis prevention and peacebuilding.5 Still, even with
Lisbon, the current pillar structure will not be completely abolished. It is thus used as a
reference point to draw a picture of existing policies and instruments that pertain to
peacebuilding and our proposal for a European Civil Peace Service programme.
Existing instruments at Community level
Under the supra-national Community pillar – with policy implementation financed through
the European Commission (EC) – a major development of the last years has been the
4
See Anderson/Olson (2003).
5
For futher details and a set of innovative recommendations, see the EPLO Policy Paper on the
European External Action Service (2009).
4
reform of the external financial instruments which form the legal basis for the
Communities' spending for policy implementation in third countries.6 However, with
peacebuilding and conflict transformation being relatively new fields of external action,
there is no specific Peacebuilding Instrument under the current 2007-2013 financial
perspective. In addition, due to an inter-institutional fight over competencies between
Member States (MS) and the EC around the conceptual borders between development
and security policies, references to peacebuilding and the prevention of violent conflict
have not been included in the existing instruments' regulations. Only the regulation of
the Instrument for Stability (IfS) refers indirectly to the topic, and the European
Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) mentions “peaceful conciliation of
group interests” in relation to political pluralism and democratic political participation and
representation. None of the external aid instruments foresee peacebuilding and the
prevention of violent conflict as objectives in their own right.7 Moreover, Community
support for peacebuilding activities under the IfS is limited because even though stability
is claimed to be its main purpose, the larger part of available amounts is earmarked for
short-term crisis response, supporting activities for a maximum duration of 18 months.
On the one hand this leads to having the EC contract mainly implementers with large
operational capacity, such as UN agencies, and on the other hand it prevents NGOs from
obtaining support for longer term peacebuilding programmes.
In short, the European Union's ambition to promote peace and the existing need
and growing importance of civil society-led peacebuilding activities are
insufficiently reflected in the existing Community financing framework.
Civilian dimensions under the Common Foreign Security Policy pillar
It is perhaps under its Common Foreign Security Policy, the so-called second pillar, that
the EU has undergone the most rapid change in recent years. This policy area, where MS'
governments are key decision makers while the EC and European Parliament (EP) have
limited powers, includes the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP). It is under
ESDP that the EU has launched a series of crisis management missions all over the world,
drawing on MS capabilities. The majority of crisis management missions have been
civilian, mirroring the European-wide consensus that in contemporary conflicts a more
diverse set of instruments is needed to respond efficiently. However, looking at the
numbers of mission personnel deployed and the related headline goals for capability
development, there is still a large discrepancy between military and civilian capacities
and the resources allocated.8
Apart from this continuing imbalance, civilian crisis management has shown limitations
as its main focus is on building state institutions at the top level, with priority areas being
police, rule of law, civilian administration and civil protection. Apart from integrated
military-civilian missions, mainly focusing on security sector reform, only two monitoring
missions (Aceh Monitoring Mission-AMM, 2006 and EU Monitoring Mission in GeorgiaEUMM, ongoing) with a larger mandate have been deployed. Not surprisingly, they have
drawn on personnel beyond the limited recruitment base of national civil servants.
A historical EP initiative to be adapted to new realities – the 1999 proposal for
a European Civil Peace Corps
In light of the war in Bosnia, in 1995 the late Italian Member of European Parliament
Alexander Langer initiated a proposal for the creation of a European Civil Peace Corps
6
Apart from the IfS and EIDHR the following external financial instruments offer sporadic entry points
that allow for funding of civilian activities in conflict areas: the Non State Actors and Local Authorities (NSA-LA)
programme under the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI), the European Neighbourhood and
Partnership Instrument (ENPI) and the Instrumentof Pre-Accession (IPA).
7
See the short article in edition III.5 of EPLO's Conflict Prevention Newsletter (EPLO 2008), page 3.
8
For an overview on ESDP missions see ISIS Europe (web – 2009).
For comparing military and civilian capability development engagements, see Council of the EU
(2008).
5
(ECPC). In one of its numerous resolutions on this matter, the EP conceptualised the
ECPC as an exclusively civilian instrument with the primary goal of supporting conflict
transformation of human-made crises, e.g. the prevention of violent conflict escalation
and contributing towards conflict de-escalation. Its tasks would have included
[selection]: mediation and confidence-building among the conflict parties; humanitarian
assistance; reintegration (including of former combatants), rehabilitation and
reconstruction; stabilisation of economic structures; monitoring and improving human
rights situations and empowerment for political participation, programmes designed to
eliminate prejudices and enemy images, etc. The proposed ECPC would have been an
official EU body with a secretariat for administration and management; recruitment,
preparation, deployment, debriefing and liaison and a pool of mission-specific
professionals, to be called on for specific missions, either on a part-time employment
basis or as short-term field workers. It would have been distinct from NGOs, but was to
rely on efficient cooperation with them.9
Two external studies, respectively commissioned by the EP and by the EC confirmed the
need for the EU to further develop its capacities for civilian peace support interventions,
and both point to the potential of non-governmental contributions in that regard.10 At
the same time, given the EU's institutional development since the late 1990s, they
recommend moving away from the original ECPC concept. The proposal for a European
Civil Peace Service might be a way forward to give a partial answer to this long-standing
political demand.
2. The proposal for a European Civil Peace Service (ECPS)
2.1. Goals and principles
The EU's image and efficiency as a global actor for peace would benefit from better
mobilising active European civil society and the expertise available in conflict
management, resolution and transformation that exists accross the European continent.
A publicly supported European Civil Peace Service (ECPS) programme, possibly
integrated with similar mechanisms and initiatives in different Members States, could be
a helpful policy instrument towards this end.
Trained peace consultants on long-term projects
An ECPS programme would provide a mechanism for certified civil society organisations
to recruit, train and deploy professional peace consultants and peace teams for long-term
placements in projects in countries affected by violent conflict. The overall aim of ECPS is
to influence the structure and dynamics of conflicts in a way that violence can be
prevented, stopped or at least reduced. It would do so by supporting and protecting local
civil society working at mid-range and grassroots levels for conflict management,
resolution and transformation before violence breaks out, during violent conflict, and
after violent escalation has stopped. In directly working on conflict, addressing the
attitudes, behaviours and structural features of a societal conflict setting, the CPS
approach differs from other important activities in a conflict-affected country, such as
conflict-sensitive development cooperation that can make important complementary
contributions to addressing the root causes of conflict (such as poverty, insufficient
educational infrastructure, lacking health system, and environmental degradation).
Implemented by civil society organisations
While functioning under a legal framework and supported through public funding,
responsibility for implementation of the ECPS programme would lie with European civil
9
10
European Parliament (1999).
Gourlay/Fischer (2004) and Robert/Vilby/Aiolfi (2005).
6
society organisations which meet jointly agreed quality standards, for instance on
training as well as on project and mission planning, monitoring and evaluation.
Acceptance and cooperation with local partner organisations is key in all phases of
projects. However, to fully exploit the advantages of their third-party role, ECPS
implementing organisations will stress their organisational independence, both towards
public institutions in Europe, and towards local partner organisations.
Principles that will inform the development of ECPS quality standards are:
Professionality: Under the ECPS programme, civil society organisations would recruit
adult men and women with several years of relevant work experience. They would have
to undergo a thorough assessment and training before their placement. Also, peace
consultants and peace team members would need to work within a stable organizational
structure, following rules (such as Codes of Conduct and Standard Operating
Procedures), and with regular contracts and salaries that value their service.
Sustainability: For the type of civil society peacebuilding work envisioned, and to achieve
lasting impact, ECPS intervention projects would often need a longer term timeframe.
After completion of an ECPS project, structures would need to be in place that enable
local actors to continue the work. Target groups and their broader constituencies need to
be more empowered to deal in a constructive manner with (re)emerging conflicts.
Conflict sensitivity: The design of any ECPS project would need to be based on a deep
conflict analysis, and peace consultants and peace team members would be trained to
reflect on their on role. In their action they need to be aware of cultural codes, and avoid
unintended harm they might cause to local civil society and conflict dynamics.
Non-partisanship: ECPS peace consultants and peace team members would seek
dialogue with stakeholders from all conflicting parties, including violent actors or spoilers,
encouraging them to act nonviolently on their conflict issues. ECPS staff must not side
with a particular conflict party. Despite the general openness for dialogue, they would be
committed to general principles of human rights and nonviolence and take clear positions
against violence and abuses carried out by different conflict actors.
Legitimacy: External intervention must be based on local acceptance. Transparent
policies, needs assessment-based project design and implementation which includes local
expertise would be important features of the ECPS approach.
An existing example - the German Civil Peace Service programme
In Germany a Civil Peace Service (CPS) programme is already reality. Born from a civil
society initiative in response to the Balkan Wars, in 1998 the German government
adopted the idea of a professional CPS for adult men and women with previous life and
work experience to be trained and sent out for long-term placements (minimum two
years) to work side-by-side with local partner organisations to support their conflict
transforamtion and peacebuilding initiaitives. While the German state provides for the
legal framework and funding (including questions of insurances, salary levels, etc.) in
the framework of the German law for development workers, it is a group of
organisations officially recognised by the development cooperation ministry, that carries
out the programme.
Since its instauration approximately 540 peace consultant have worked in 50 countries.
The overall financial contribution since 1998 amounts to almost 120 milion Euros, the
programme's annual budget currently being at about 29 milion Euros. In the German
government's Action Plan for Civilian Crisis Prevention, Conflict Resolution and Post-
7
Conflict Peace-Building the Civil Peace Service is mentioned as the most successful civil
society instrument for peacebuilding.11 In addition, it has largely contributed to further
professionalising and building up capacities in crises prevention, peacebuilding and
conflict transformation.
2.2. Possible fields of action and added value
The following list is not exhaustive, however, to date these fields of action have proven
suitable for civil society peace interventions:12
Unarmed civilian peacekeeping: Similar to international election monitoring, this
approach uses proactive international presence to deter human rights violations,
to protect local stakeholders, and to create safe space for conflicting parties to
meet. Sub-activities can include human rights and ceasefire monitoring, rumour
control, conveying information to the international public, accompaniment of local
activists at risk, and providing physical space for conflicting parties to hold
dialogue and other related activities.
Develop structures for dialogue and cooperation: Being accepted as non-partisan,
international peace consultants can help to facilitate dialogue and develop
cooperative activities around joint interests across the conflict divides. Subactivities can include capacity building support through trainings and strategic
planning workshops with local stakeholders.
Transitional justice issues: Different measures have been developed to address
grievances and to deal with the past after large-scale violence and human rights
violations. Activities at civil society level can include issue-specific workshops and
facilitation of meetings, support to local actors' advocacy initiatives, support to
truth commissions and strengthening of traditional arbitration bodies.
Networking support: Internationals often have easier access to both international
and different local and regional actors. They can help to create contact points,
connect and bring together actors with similar interests, and support the
establishment and running of local peace committees. They can also give
consultancy to other international actors to adjust their programmes and projects
in a conflict-sensitive manner.
Strengthen communication channels: Communication is key in peace and conflict
work, likewise rumours and propaganda evoke acts of violence. Related activities
include support to peace journalism and conflict-sensitive media development or
the creation of local early warning and communication systems.
Reintegration and rehabilitation: Direct violence has traumatic consequences,
groups particularly affected by violence (including ex-combatants or women that
have survived sexual violence) often have difficulties to return to a normal life.
Activities include support to women's associations, working with war-veteran
associations, or help to build-up and connect trauma-healing centres.
Counselling and training: To empower local stakeholders to deal constructively
and effectively with conflicts, core activities include counselling and training on
instruments and strategies of civil conflict management as well as training on
related advocacy measures.
11
For the Action Plan see German Foreign Office (2004). The Civil Peace Service programme is instead
managed by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ).
12
The fields of action are derived from existing NGO-peacebuilding experiences, and from the German
CPS group's joint standards paper (2005).
8
Peace education: In conflict-affected societies, enemy images and prejudices are
often passed on for several generations; at the same time youth, and especially
young men, are a risk group when it comes to a renewal of violence. Cooperation
activities that involve educational institutions and teacher associations can be of
high value to work with future generation on changes in attitudes and behaviour.
Added value of a European Civil Peace Service
With a European Civil Peace Service programme, the European Union would have a
mechanism in place to allow for provision of support to peace processes at mid-range
and grassroots level. The support peace consultants and peace teams could give around
the aforementioned peacebuilding activities has great potential to strengthen the societal
capacity for conflict-resilience. This bottom-up support can thus also increase the
sustainability of high level agreements and institution-building processes, including those
supported by the European Union with other policy instruments.
On a more structural level, the ECPS programme will be able to mobilise expertise and
human resources available within European civil society to actively contribute to
peacebuilding. Apart from the programme's own external communication potential, each
participating organisation and even the individuals involved would help to strengthen the
EU's image as a participatory democratic project that promotes peace by peaceful means
in its external relations.
Building on first initiatives such as the Peace-Building Partnership, the ECPS programme
will also help to further build up the much needed capacity for effective crisis
management and peacebuilding. The EU will be able to seize more of the expertise and
innovative potential the European peacebuilding NGO-sector has to offer, while providing
it a clearer access to propose projects for long-term civil society peacebuilding support.
2.3. Personnel, training and recruitment
At the core of the ECPS concept lies the peace consultant or peace team member. Their
professional quality would be a distinctive feature of the instrument. Instead of aid in
material goods, it is his or her qualifications, knowledge and skills, the human capital of a
trained peace professional, that is put at the disposal of beneficiaries during an ECPS
placement. Different projects with different activities require different human resource
solutions. In some cases there will be a network of project offices with just one or two
European peace consultants, in other cases peace teams with two-digit numbers of
members might be the most useful solutions. In addition, similar schemes have shown
that the additional hiring of local support staff brings advantages.
Experts in conflict transformation
ECPS peace consultants or peace team members must be adults with several years of
working experience. The professional profile should include a set of personal
characteristics, related to the core principles set out before. Additional social and
personal skills should be selection criteria for pre-training assessments. Even though
each implementing organisation should have the freedom to define its own recruitment
and training procedures, there will need to be joint minimum standards for the
implementers, especially when it comes to pre-training and pre-mission assessment.
Training
9
Training requirements will depend on the candidate’s previous experience and should be
arranged by each certified implementing organisation, drawing on the training
infrastructure already available among European civil society organisations. For future
peace consultants without previous experience, there should be a generic training with a
minimum duration of three months. Additional training would be function- and projectspecific, followed by in-country training at the start of the placement, including language
training.
3. Institutional arrangements and funding
ECPS secretariat
Possible arrangements for the establishment of a European Civil Peace Service
programme are of course linked to the EU's institutional framework. While most of the
implementation work for training, placements, planning, monitoring and evaluation would
be in the hands of certified NGOs, an ECPS secretariat inside the EU institutions would be
needed as focal point for coordination with both the implementing NGOs and Member
States' agencies with similar programmes, and for disbursement-related administration.
In the current EU structure the best place for such a secretariat would be in the EC
Directorate General for External Relations (possibly connected to the Unit on Crisis
Response and Peace-Building); should the Lisbon Treaty entry into force, an ECPS
secretariat might be part of a future Peacebuilding Directorate or similar structures within
the future European External Action Service (EEAS).
Certified implementing organisations
Concerning the ECPS implementing organisations, a dialogue process defining the criteria
for accreditation should be put in place, followed by a framework agreement between the
European Commission and European NGO partners that meet the criteria and have
sufficient operational capacity. Accredited European NGOs should also be allowed to
propose cooperation projects involving smaller NGOs in project implementation while
taking on the task of reporting and other administrative duties.
Steps towards the establishment of an ECPS programme
The ECPS programme could be established as a funding programme under the
management of the European Commission (in the future possibly under the EEAS) with
several pilot projects in a first phase. If an evaluation of such a start-up phase proves
positive, in a second phase an ECPS could be integrated as a specific programme under
one of the future external financial instruments. Lastly, related to funding issues, the
possibility of pooling resources with like-minded Member States' agencies should be
further explored, possibly leading to a system of European Civil Peace Services, with a
mix of financing out of Community and Member States' budgets, thus increasing the
coherence and value-for-money of support to civil society initiatives in the field of
peacebuilding.
4. Recommendations to the European Parliament
Demand a pilot scheme for ECPS in 2010
Support in the 2010 EU budget the pilot project for a programme for NGO-led
peacebuilding activities, to try out some significant features of a future European Civil
Peace Service programme. Also, be prepared to support a more focused initiative under
next year's procedure for the 2011 budget.
Raise awareness with the new Commissioner for External Relations
10
During the hearings of the next candidate Commission ask the candidate Commissioner
responsible for External Relations about his/her support for civil society peacebuilding
initiatives and for establishing an ECPS programme.
Support an ECPS programme within the next financial perspective
In the reform of the EU budget and in the subsequent re-framing of financial instruments
for the next financial perspectives, consider to include the ECPS as a thematic
programme under a future Peacebuilding Instrument or a reformed Democracy and
Human Rights instrument. An EP report, of own initiative or other typology, could be
helpful in that direction.
Make use of supervision role for IfS implementation
Watch over the implementation of the relevant remark under the EU 2009 budget,
concerning the Instrument for Stability, which states that part of the appropriation for
crisis response measures will be managed through a facility fund for NGO-led activities at
grassroots level to prevent violent escalations.
Ask the European Commission to take initiative
Though we argue for a specific arrangement for an ECPS, under the current Instrument
for Stability an Interim Programme for "civil-society support to local civil society in crisis
or emerging crisis areas" could help to collect further valuable experience with civil
society peace interventions.
Bibliography
Anderson, Mary B. / Olson, Lara (2003) Confronting War: Critical Lessons for Peace Practitioners –
http://www.cdainc.com/cdawww/pdf/book/confrontingwar_Pdf1.pdf
Council of the EU (2008) Report on the Implementation of the European Security Strategy http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/reports/104630.pdf
Council of the EU (2008), Declaration on Strengthening Capabilities http://consilium.europa.eu/showPage.aspx?id=1349&lang=EN
European Parliament (1999) Recommendation to the Council of 10 February 1999, on the
establishment of a European Civil Peace Corps, OJ C 150, 28.5.1999, p. 164
European Peacebuilding Liaison Office (2008) Conflict Prevention Newsletter, volume III edition 5 http://www.eplo.org/documents/EPLOCPNL_3_05.pdf
European Peacebuilding Liaison Office (2009), Policy Paper on the European External Action Service
- http://www.eplo.org/index.php?id=224
German Civil Peace Service Group (2005) Standards for the Civil Peace Service - http://www.encps.org/Civil_Peace_Services?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=cps_standards_english.pdf
German Federal Foreign Office (2004) Action Plan Civilian Crisis Prevention, Conflict Resolution and
Post-Conflict Peace-Building - http://www.auswaertigesamt.de/diplo/de/Aussenpolitik/Themen/Krisenpraevention/Downloads/Aktionsplan-En.pdf
German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, Civil Peace Service –
http://www.bmz.de/en/issues/Peacebuilding/civil_peace_service/index.html
Gourlay, Catriona / Fischer, Martina (2004), Feasibility Study on the European Civil Peace Corps,
International Security Information Service Europe (ISIS Europe), http://www.berghofcenter.org/uploads/download/ecpc_0104.pdf
ISIS Europe (2009) ESDP Mission Analysis Chart & Table – http://www.isiseurope.org/pdf/2009_artrel_329_esr46-esdpchart.pdf
11
Robert P. / Vilby K. / Aiolfi L. (2005) Feasibility Study on the establishment of a European Civil
Peace Corps (ECPC) - Final report – http://www.forum-ids.org/resources/papers/ECPC-Civil-
Feasability-Study-Report-2005.pdf
World Bank (2006) Civil Society and Peacebuilding Potential, Limitations and Critical Factors –
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/Resources/2443621164107274725/3182370-1164110717447/Civil_Society_and_Peacebuilding.pdf
12