Events Workshops and Webinars

The consortium organized a series of workshops focusing on novel approaches, concepts, and methods in CPPB training. The workshops, both online and offline, were designed to introduce ideas and results, and especially to bring together practitioners in order to further develop these perspectives by working together with key actors in the field. To know more on the outcomes of the workshops please check our reports section and the News section on the platform.


Is mediation an appropriate tool for peace training?

 June 18, 2018
Vienna, Austria
Organiser: BMI (Austrian ministry of Internal Affairs)

The workshop on mediation as a tool for peace training was organized by BMI (Austrian ministry of Internal Affairs) and ARGE Bildungsmanagement and was held on the 18th of June 2018, the international day of mediation, in Vienna, Austria. The workshop took the form of an evening discussion round and took place between 18h and 21h. The event focused on mediation, an important topic on which many trainings occur in the peace training field, but also in other areas involving conflict resolution (e.g. interpersonal relations, business). The workshop focused on whether mediation should be included more extensively in the preparation of field personnel, in particular as a way to develop their interpersonal communication skills. Indeed, interpersonal communication skills have been identified as an important gap in peace training and staff preparation by the project (D.3.5.).


The 29 participants were field workers, trainers, training institutes, university professors, and mediators. The invited panel included a range of different fields. The speakers were:


  1.  Aladin Bandi, Syrian, MBA, Founder+Chairman of SMART Academy, Vienna after successful Abu Dhabi Vision 2030, Master of Business Administration from Atlanta University, USA.
  2. Berthold Hubegger, BA in Police-Leadership, MA in Security Management, Deputy Head of the Department “Operational Affairs” as well as Head of the Unit “International Missions and Operations” within the Ministry of Interior, Austria. He has extensive international experience in various EU and UN missions especially in police reform issues.
  3. Galina Pokhmelkina,, Moskau: Psychodrama-therapist, Mediator, Psychologist; engaged in and organising member of open dialogue between Ukrainians & Russians.
  4. Harald Rettner, Vienna, M.A. Peace & Conflict Studies, Social Worker; he has worked in conflict zones around the globe – e.g. Bougainville, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Ukraine;
  5. Roland B. Wilson, PhD, Incheon, Korea, Program Coordinator & Professor of Conflict Analysis & Resolution, George Mason University, Korea Campus
  6. Jay W. Yamashiro, Vienna, M.A. Peace & Conflicts study, LGBTIQ-affirmative Kink-aware Mental health professional, Somatic Sexologist.


Moderation: Gerda Mehta, Vienna, Psychotherapist, Mediator, Supervisor, Clinical Psychologist.


The event addressed the following issues specifically:


  • Introduction to the project and the platform.
  • Broader debate on the key characteristics of peace training and the limitations of training in supporting mission effectiveness.
  • Main debate: mediation as an essential skill for field workers, including lessons to be learned from mediation experts from various disciplines, the need to pay attention to interpersonal relations in the field, as well as mediation as a tool to enhance local ownership.
  • Mediation and trust-building require time. There is a potential mismatch with short-term missions or missions engaged in by personnel with high turnover. It is necessary to understand this when training personnel is hired. Even highly trained individuals in mediation require time in the field to learn the context, build trust, and support conflict resolution.
  • Difficulties of providing training for those who engage in peace and conflict resolution activities during times of escalation in various regions, and in the aftermath of escalation when dealing with long term effects, such as trauma, resettling in society, preventing and countering violent extremism, and peace keeping missions.

Advanced Training of Trainers: Designing and Delivering Effective Capacity Building Programmes in the Peacebuilding and Conflict Transformation Field

 June 4-8, 2018
Cluj, Romania
Organiser: PATRIR

The Advanced Training of Trainers programme was organized by the PATRIR team from 4 to 8 June 2018 at Cluj, Romania. The training programme brought together experienced civil society and military stakeholders involved as trainers or training coordinators in conflict prevention and peacebuilding training programmes. The programme was an important opportunity to introduce the potential of the platform for registered organizations and trainers as well as to elicit input and feedback on the Handbook sections of the platform developed under 4.5, among a key target group of the consortium.


The 5-day programme concretely addressed the following:


  • Overall presentation of the project, consortium members, objectives, deliverables
  • A session dedicated to a review and discussion of current gaps and challenges in the peace training field and connecting the answers to the results of the research in the project
  • A series of sessions addressing the a) definition, understanding and components of a curriculum, b) process of elaborating a curriculum c) curriculum categories and d) curriculum standards
  • A session dedicated to innovative approaches and methods in conflict prevention and peacebuilding training
  • A session looking at sensitivities in conflict prevention and peacebuilding training
  • A session looking at the Peacebuilding Trainer Qualification Profile
  • Sessions in which participants applied the frameworks and innovations to development of model curricula and training methods and approaches for their courses and organisations


All the sessions included discussion and exercises on the above mentioned topics, an introduction to the findings of the project as well as noting down ideas/conclusions/recommendations/feedback from the participants. Some key comments and recommendations feeding into the further development of the platform include:


  • The curricula frameworks are complex models that need significant time to be introduced, understood and incorporated into existing institutions. This advice can be combined with D2.7. Workshop summary report 2 © 2018 | Horizon 2020 – BES-13-2015 | 700583 11 comments raised during the experts meeting in Brussels on the possibility of including video examples
  • The fact that the models and examples are cross-sectorial is welcomed and it brought about several ideas of future cooperation
  • Interest in the platform is high as well as the expectations from such a platform
  • Several examples were collected and could be incorporated into the e-platform, such an example being NATO’s online curricula to which participants were invited to provide feedback
  • Conflict sensitivity and other sensitivities are still among the blind spots in many training programmes and the identification and stressing of these by the project were appreciated

Experts Meeting: Shaping the Future of Peace Training in Europe & Beyond

 June 5, 2018

Organiser: EPLO

The Experts Meeting was a half-day event held at the European Peacebuilding Liaison Office (EPLO), on the 5th June 2018. At the meeting, experts in the CBBP field were invited to offer their perspectives on the web platform, the conference (to be held in Vienna on 01-02 October 2018), and a proposal to consider the creation of a trainers handbook informed by the outputs of the project (letter of invite is in Annex 1).


Participants were identified by consortium partners, based on contacts made during the research phase of the project, their experience in the peacebuilding field, and the positions they currently hold. The participants are outlined in table 2.1, and their full biographical details are in Annex 2.


From the consortium, the following members attended:


  • Nancy Annan,
  • Kai Brand-Jacobsen
  • Leila Demarest
  • Patricia García Amado
  • Bernhard Jager
  • Carmen Munteanu


The agenda for the meeting (as is outlined in Annex 3) focused on two significant aspects of the project as a whole: the Web Platform and the Conference. The web platform was chosen as it is a substantial output of the project, and this provided the consortium with a valuable opportunity to:


  • Test initial responses to current state of the web platform
  • Allow participants the opportunity to help shape the web platform
  • Demonstrate the current and potential utility of the platform to practitioners and policymakers
  • Get ‘buy-in’ from the practitioner community for the outputs


The focus on the conference offered the consortium the opportunity to:


  • Have participants engage with the ideas behind the conference, allowing the consortium to shape it to the needs of the field
  • Engage with new ideas brought to the meeting from participants (what topics are important, and what format the conference could take)
  • Advertise the conference itself, and have key partners commit to conference attendance, presenting at the conference, and spreading information about the conference through their networks


The sessions dealing with the above topics were designed as interactive sessions, each led by a short presentation by a consortium member.


Moreover, space was allocated in the expert meeting for presentations on the project as a whole and on the outputs from Work Package 4, most notably Deliverable 4.5, the compendium.


The meeting brought a range of reflections from the participants on the topic areas, as well as more general points about the project:


  • Regarding the web platform, discussion firstly focused on the general features of the platform. In particular, the utility of the platform as a ‘hub’ for advertising training in the CPPB field, the requirement to sustain the platform and ensure it is kept live and regularly updated, the need for care to be taken in ensuring its complementarity with other systems (such as Goalkeeper), and the potential to develop tools such as webinars, ‘how-to’ guides, video testimonials, and communities of practice. Participants then discussed the roster of experts. Here, discussion focused on the need to create space for new training actors, whilst maintaining quality, the need for distinctions along trainer roles (who is an expert, a facilitator, junior/senior trainers, part of training team), collaborative learning processes, and the potential utility of trainers, outlining their regional expertise, location, and willingness to travel through the roster.
  • The main points from the discussion on the October Conference included the identification of topics of interest (including Training people with trauma, Communication and social media use, Moving beyond Western system viewpoints in training, Soft skills mainstreaming, Change management, Synergies between providers across sectoral boundaries), guidance on the potential participants of such an event (both in terms of the organisations and job functions), and the potential relevance of such a conference to the organisations represented.
  • Feedback to the concept of the Peace Training Handbook included the need to include exercises within the handbook, the requirement to have the handbook reflect European D2.7. Workshop summary report 2 © 2018 | Horizon 2020 – BES-13-2015 | 700583 10 standards for training, and differing organisational capacities, and the potential to implement the handbook with videos to outline how to use approaches and methods. • More general reflections on the project included the requirement of sustainability to make the platform a community of practice and keep it up-to-date and relevant, the recognition of gaps in the field, how to expand the outcome of the project globally beyond the EU after the end of the project, the need to take into consideration emerging strategic developments and frameworks in the field, and the critical need to identify how to motivate possible target groups to use the platform.


The Quick Report, which was sent to participants the day after the event is included in Annex 4. This expands on the findings, and outlines how the consortium seeks to continue engaging with participants.

Designing and Implementing Effective Monitoring and Evaluation for Peacebuilding and Peace Support Operations

 December 7-9, 2017
London, UK
Organiser: –

The ‘Designing & Implementing Effective Monitoring and Evaluation for Peacebuilding and Peace Support Operations’ training was held in London, UK from the 7 – 9 December 2017. The event fed into the consortium’s work on designing CPPB sub-curricula under task 4.3.


The ‘Designing & Implementing Effective Monitoring and Evaluation for Peacebuilding and Peace Support Operations’ is an advanced level sub-curricula designed for senior practitioners, monitoring & evaluation units, field staff, and heads of agencies working in prevention, peacebuilding and peace support operations – including crisis management; violence prevention; mediation, peacemaking and peace processes during armed conflict; peacebuilding and development; post-war recovery and reconciliation; UN missions; and demobilization, disarmament and reintegration programmes. The sub-curricula has been designed to assist organizations, agencies and missions in the field to see how to develop appropriate monitoring & evaluation systems and processes customized for their exact needs and contexts. Drawing upon the state of the art of the field and best practices in Planning, Monitoring & Evaluation and Learning & Improvement, the sub-curricula assists participants to understand how to develop and apply effective M&E systems; develop appropriate indicators for missions and programmes; track impact on conflict context and peacebuilding / stabilization objectives; develop dynamic learning systems to improve quality and impact of missions and field operations.


The design of the sub-curricula and training methodology is intended for programmes to be highly intense and effective, focusing on improving practical and applied skills and tools for those working in the field. Participants are exposed to a range of rigorous and effective methodologies, tools and case studies which they can apply in their work. Core feed-back on the course included:




  • The content of the programme was unique covering monitoring and evaluation in-depth
  • The special emphasis placed on all phases of monitoring and evaluation – from management and preparation to implementation and utilisation – made participants aware of the crucial importance of effective engagement and management of M&E processes across phases
  • The presentation of M&E as integral to CPPB programming and missions, and methods for how to utilise M&E as a component to achieve peacebuilding impact was also seen as novel and original and an important innovation in the field;
  • Strongest response and positive assessment was received for the sub-curricula’s focus on how to engage stakeholders, partners and local communities as owners, participants and drivers of M&E processes, and the need to engage stakeholders and local / national actors and institutions at all points in the design, planning, development, implementation and utilisation of M&E processes;
  • The breadth of technologies, data gathering and analysis tools and methods, and tools for implementation was seen as highly beneficial for improving the state of the field;
  • Applied practice to case studies and engagement with participants own M&E processes and programming as part of the content of the training made the content richer and enabled participants to better engage with key tools and methods.




  • Combination of mixed training / learning methods was assessed as critical to the success of the programme, which utilised: briefing sessions; working groups; task forces; collaborative design processes; case reviews; participant experience sharing and participant design forums. Provision of pre-programme preparatory materials was also positively assessed. Exercises addressing key moments in monitoring and evaluation processes and were positively evaluated;
  • Engagement with participants own programmes and M&E Frameworks was seen as helping to link methods and concepts taught to applied practice and improving participants’ ability to implement benefits and learning from the programme;
  • Participant selection bringing together expert evaluators and staff of missions and agencies was seen as highly valuable to approach the issue of M&E from the point of view of different key stakeholders involved and improved the learning experience and opportunity for cross fertilisation across sectors – assessed by participants as necessary for how M&E are implemented in the field and utilisation of M&E for improving CPPB practice;
  • Use of in-programme testing helped to support retention of key concepts


Feed-back and results of the event enabled the following to feed into the 4.3. report:


  • Confirmation of the need for sub-curricula on ‘Designing & Implementing Effective Monitoring and Evaluation for Peacebuilding and Peace Support Operations’ designed for advance/intermediate and senior/expert level practitioners and policy makers in missions as well as the need to ensure appropriate entry/beginner level sub-curricula for new mission staff and integration into pre-deployment training;
  • Confirmation of the importance of appropriately customised mixed methodologies approaches to training to develop participants’ competencies;
  • Confirmation of the importance of integrating case studies, evaluation and learning from the field into training content


Participant feed-back also highlighted the importance of:


  • Better understanding in the field of M&E as crucial components of CPPB missions rather than as ‘stand alone’ elements implemented to meet donor or leadership requirements;
  • The need to integrate planning for M&E in the design and pre-deployment mission preparation phases from the beginning as well as to plan from the start for management, preparation, implementation and utilisation of M&E processes and results;
  • The tremendous space and opportunity for innovation in the field of M&E, whereas too much of today’s practice is highly standardized using approaches that have proven to have little value and benefit for the field and are profoundly inefficient as mechanisms for assisting practitioners and missions to learn from and improve mission and programme effectiveness and implementation;
  • Ensuring local and national stakeholders and their ownership of evaluation processes and learning should be placed at the centre of evaluation planning and implementation;
  • Greater focus should be placed in the field as a whole on learning from the results of evaluation processes and feeding lessons identified into improved training and preparation of personnel and mission/organisation staff and improving methods, tools and approaches used in the field;
  • Improving joined-up, multi-stakeholder and multi-sector evaluation and improvement processes

Making Mediation and Peace Processes Work: Peacemaking in Deeply Divided Societies and Challenging Conflicts

 December 4-6, 2017
London, UK
Organiser: EEAS

The ‘Making Mediation and Peace Processes Work: Peacemaking in Deeply Divided Societies and Challenging Conflicts’ training event was held in London, UK from the 4 – 6 December 2017. The course fits into ongoing work on sub-curricula development by the consortium.


The ‘Making Mediation and Peace Processes Work’ is an advanced level curriculum designed for governments, EEAS, UN agencies and missions, and national and international organizations working with mediation, negotiations, dialogue processes (from community to national and inter-party levels), peacemaking, and peace processes. The sub-curricula is intended for expert mediators and parties to mediation and negotiation processes seeking to identify measures to strengthen and improve their processes. The sub-curricula assists those involved in mediation and peacemaking efforts – before, during or post-war – to address key challenges and explore practical ways of improving the quality and results of their mediation and peacemaking processes. The programme is also designed to actively assist mediation and peace processes. Technical Assistance is provided to ensure customized support for participating experts, representatives and organisations and agencies. It can also be applied for mediation parties and mediators to assist them by providing a space to step out from their normal contexts and to go in-depth, in a facilitated process, into improving their meditation and peacemaking skills, methods and approaches.


Through the sub-curricula participants are able to enhance skills and understanding to improve coordination and coherence in peacemaking in the field and between policy and practice. Addressing both top-level formal and informal negotiations, mediation and peace processes the sub-curricula explores how processes can be made more effective by linking with other tracks and the work that can be done by civil society actors, donors, international agencies, national parliaments, analysts, media and other to support mediation processes and create an enabling environment for transition and resolution. It also provides participants with advance knowledge on preparation, design, D2.5 Workshop summary report 1 © 2017 | Horizon 2020 – BES-13-2015 | 700583 17 development, implementation and follow-through in mediation and peace processes and addresses the links, gaps and opportunities in multi-track dialogue, mediation, peacemaking and peacebuilding.


Participants provided review and feed-back on the content and methodology of the sub-curricula. Core feed-back included:




  • The content of the sub-curricula was seen as a significant advance upon currently available programmes and training on mediation and peace processes. The materials went more in-depth into understanding how to prepare, manage, implement and ensure follow-through of mediation and peace processes;
  • Intensive focus on what is needed for effective preparation, management and follow-through was assessed by participants as significantly enhancing the likelihood for success of mediation and peace processes while addressing a critical gap in most current trainings;
  • Inclusion of participants and content in the training placing mediation and peace processes within the broader context of peacebuilding, peace consolidation, and war-to-peace transition and recovery also helps participants to better understand challenges affecting mediation and peace processes as well as opportunities and necessary conditions for effective peace implementation;
  • Extensive reference and utilisation of real life case examples and in-depth review of multiple case studies used as ‘case learning experiences’ helped both to draw important lessons from real life mediation and peace processes and to highlight the importance of using evaluation, learning, reflective practice and ‘case learning’ to improve mediation and peace process implementation;
  • Strong focus on the need for local and national level ownership, inclusion of key stakeholders, support for trusted inside mediators, and reassessing the appropriate roles for external missions and international practitioners helped to address some of the current bad practices often seen in the field where too much power – sometimes linked with too little competence – is placed in the hands of external parties;
  • Strong focus on gender-dimensions of mediation and peace processes and necessary measures to support and enable i. women’s participation in peace processes; and ii. peace processes and mediation addressing gender dimensions of conflicts was also strongly valued and appreciated by participants




  • Combination of mixed training / learning methods was assessed as critical to the success of the programme, which utilised: briefing sessions; working groups; task forces; collaborative design processes; case reviews; participant experience sharing and participant design forums. Provision of pre-programme preparatory materials and use of video/film in the programme for case studies was also positively assessed. Exercises addressing key moments in mediation and peace processes and engaging participants experience in finding solutions to challenges was also positively evaluated;
  • The use of case studies both for in-depth review and illustration of key lessons with references to field-based practice and experience was highly appreciated by participants helping them to better connect materials covered to actual application in the field; D2.5 Workshop summary report 1 © 2017 | Horizon 2020 – BES-13-2015 | 700583 18
  • Participant selection bringing together key practitioners from across sectors including mediation practitioners, UN agencies and missions, government institutions, and think tanks was seen as highly valuable and improving the learning experience and opportunity for cross fertilisation across sectors – assessed by participants as necessary for also improving joined up approaches and collaboration in the field;
  • Combining expert lectures and presentation of key learnings with a highly participatory and engaging methodology was seen by participants as important for improving actual learning and development of competencies that can be used in the field;
  • Integration of reflective practices and evaluation methods into the training method itself helped to strengthen participants’ own understanding of the role, value and need for evaluation and reflection in mediation and peace processes to improve quality and impact


The verification event provided a valuable and important opportunity to test the Making Mediation and Peace Processes Work sub-curricula content and methodology proposed in the 4.3. report.


Feed-back and results on the training event enabled the following:


  • Confirmation of the need for sub-curricula on Making Mediation and Peace Processes Work designed for advance/intermediate and senior/expert level practitioners and policy makers in missions;
  • Confirmation of the importance of appropriately customised mixed methodologies approaches to training to develop participants’ competencies;
  • Confirmation of the importance of integrating case studies, evaluation and learning from the field into training content


Participant feed-back also highlighted the importance of:


  • Paying greater attention to the design, management, support and preparation of peace processes to increase likelihood of successful results;
  • Ensuring greater attention is given to implementation of agreements and putting in place mechanisms and processes for this to happen;
  • The potential for international missions and programmes to effectively support women’s participation in mediation and peace processes (particularly learning from the Colombia case study) and the vital role that civil society can place (Colombia, Northern Ireland, Philippines)
  • Greater engagement with mediation as a tool in prevention and not only during war or to end wars armed conflicts;
  • The need for mediation also in post-war peace consolidation and stabilisation phases to address ongoing and new conflicts which could affect peace consolidation;
  • The potential and need to engage with mediation in governance processes to improve capabilities of parties to work together in governance and state institutions also after war
  • The need to place far greater emphasis in missions and designing missions and programming appropriately to ensure support is given to development and leadership of local and national mediation capacities and peace processes

Local Ownership and Interagency Coordination and Cooperation in Kosovo

 November 2, 2017
Pristina, Kosovo
Organiser: KCSS

The workshop on ‘Local Ownership and Interagency Coordination and Cooperation in Kosovo’ was held in Pristina on the 2nd of November. The workshop lasted from 09.00 to 12.45 and consisted of two open sessions: one on the post-conflict transition in Kosovo, and one on the development of local ownership in Kosovo in the post-independence period. The workshop was attended by about 25 participants, representing both state and international institutions in Kosovo, as well as representatives from civil society organizations. Invited speakers included:


  • Mr. Ismail Smakiqi, General Director of Kosovo Academy for Public Safety
  • Col. Rui Esteves, Assistant Chief of Staff Joint Effects Centre in KFOR HQ
  • Ms. Garentina Kraja, Senior Research Fellow, KCSS
  • Mr. Rexehp Selimi, Vice Chairperson of the Committee on Internal Affairs and Security of the Kosovo Assembly
  • Mr. Pëllumb Kallaba, Security Expert


The workshop on the one hand revealed the positive impression of KFOR by Kosovar stakeholders (in particular when compared to EULEX in Kosovo), but on the other hand also highlighted increasing concerns on the slow progress towards full independence. Interestingly, the EU, and divisions between its members on the recognition of Kosovo’s independence have become an external resource for local politicians to advance their goals. These issues rightly demonstrate key challenges with implementing local ownership in conflict-affected settings, and the political objectives of external actors.


Yet, implementing local ownership is also hampered in more subtle ways than as revealed by these larger political questions on the future of Kosovo. For instance, while Monitoring is a key task of international missions (and increasingly so), not all monitors are equally well-trained in engaging with local actors and communities. The example of the UK was offered, and how their staff were received positively by local communities based on the British monitors’ experiences in Northern Ireland. Training, another key task in international missions, in particular with regard to Security Sector Reform, is also not free from external transposition of curricula and values. Kosovar stakeholders lamented for instance that police education and reform had been hampered by the rotation of different international actors and their various plans in implementing their home models in Kosovo rather than debating what works for the Kosovar case.


The findings of the Kosovo workshop have principally been taken up in the development of a training curricula on implementing local ownership in SSR missions for international CPPB practitioners (Deliverable 4.3.).

Designing Peacebuilding Programmes: Improving Quality, Sustainability and Impact

 October 30 – November 3, 2017
Cluj-Napoca, Romania
Organiser: PATRIR

The ‘Designing Peacebuilding Programmes: Improving Quality, Sustainability and Impact’ training event was held in Cluj-Napoca, Romania from the 30th of October to the 3rd of November. During this event the sub-curriculum on Designing Peacebuilding Programmes was tested out with an audience of practitioners. This course was enhanced and re-developed in the framework of the consortium’s ongoing work on sub-curricula in CPPB training (deliverable 4.3.).


‘Designing Peacebuilding Programmes’ is an intensive sub-curriculum designed for agencies, organisations and practitioners working in conflict, crisis, peacebuilding and post-war stabilisation and recovery, who wish to improve the quality, effectiveness and sustainable impact of their D2.5 Workshop summary report 1 © 2017 | Horizon 2020 – BES-13-2015 | 700583 15 programmes – including prevention, peacebuilding, social, economic and political stabilisation, reconciliation in divided communities, and post-war recovery, rehabilitation and development. The sub-curriculum is designed to address the a gap between the scale of efforts and investment in prevention and peacebuilding, the huge number of programmes, activities, missions and organisations in the field, and the impact this is all having on peacebuilding, prevention and sustainable post-war recovery and stabilisation. The training methodology is fundamentally participatory with participants given the opportunity to apply new knowledge directly to their own experiences and working environments.


Training participants provided review and feed-back on the content and methodology of the subcurricula. Core feed-back included:




  • Topics and materials addressed were highly relevant, practical and needed for practitioners in the field;
  • The DPP addressed a gap in current training and capacities in the field. Participants reflected that their agencies and current available trainings do not provide the full breadth of applicable, practical tools that can be used by practitioners and agencies/missions working in peacebuilding and prevention to improve the quality, impact, sustainability and effectiveness of their programmes;
  • Participants appreciated the design of the sub-curricula and its approach to using their own programmes to apply the methodology. This provided a rich, realistic and ‘real world’ approach to the programme which made it easier for them to engage with and use the templates, tools and methods developed;
  • Provision of a fully integrated design and planning model – from needs assessment and peace and conflict analysis through planning and design stages and evaluation, learning and improvement – was seen as unique and providing a highly valuable “integrated approach” which can improve how practitioners do peacebuilding and prevention in practice;
  • Participants reflected that the content and sub-curricula covered should be part of mandatory core training for any practitioners, agencies and missions in the field.




  • Application of the methodology to real life programming and projects substantially increases the ‘use value’ and ‘learnability’ of tools and methods;
  • Engagement with practitioners / experts across sectors and fields improves ability to ‘learn from the field’ and strengthen understanding and recognition of the value of multi-stakeholder, crosssectoral engagement on peacebuilding and prevention;
  • Highly relevant case studies helped to illustrate key learnings and ‘good’ and ‘bad’ practice lessons in peacebuilding and prevention relevant for programming design and implementation;
  • The peacebuilding and prevention design forum / reflective practice helped to draw out key expertise and learning from participants own contexts, enriching the field;
  • Utilisation of ‘Peace Support Teams’ enables participants to engage in assisting/supporting development and improvement of each other’s programming


The verification event provided a valuable and important opportunity to test the Designing Peacebuilding Programmes sub-curricula content and methodology proposed in the 4.3. report. Feed-back and results of the event enabled the following:


  • Confirmation of the need for sub-curricula on Designing Peacebuilding Programmes in the peacebuilding and prevention field;
  • Confirmation of the importance of appropriately customised mixed methodologies approaches to training to develop participants’ competencies;
  • Confirmation of the importance of applied practice – the use of participants’ own projects for tool application throughout the training – to ensure relevance and ‘usability’ of materials trained


Participant feed-back also highlighted the importance of:


  • Integrating the methods and materials covered in the training into missions / agencies own methodologies and intervention planning and implementation processes;
  • Improving joined-up approaches and cooperation across sectors;
  • Improving joint analysis and planning processes;
  • Improving joint evaluation and learning processes;
  • Re-orienting the field to strengthening local and national capacities and infrastructure for peace

Professional Capacities for Peace

 October 27, 2018
Bucharest, Romania
Organiser: Romanian military and police / Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The ‘Professional Capacities for Peace’ workshop was held in Bucharest, Romania on the 27th of October. The workshop gathered representatives from the Romanian military and police as well as representatives from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.1 The workshop lasted from 9.30 to 15.30. One of the goals of the event was to bring together actors who before have interacted only limitedly in the field of CPPB training, to share experiences and learn from each other’s strengths. As such, the event itself is an example of the need for further networking and exchange in CPPB training. The topic of the event and the workshop sessions focused on identifying key competencies for CPPB training, feeding into the consortium’s work under Work Package 4 (in particular the 4.3. and 4.5. reports).


Following a welcoming by the conveners of the Round Table, PATRIR and the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the event included a tour-de-table presentation of the participants. This included an overview of institutional perspectives and practices in the field of training for deployment in CPPB contexts, as well as an overview of the project and its findings till the moment of the event. The second morning session focused on identifying Critical Competencies for Mission Deployment which could be translated in sub-curricula but also identifying and mapping good practices and challenges of different Training Centres. Participants collaborated on the identification of core, specialisation and competencies of working in- or on- conflict. This session also included the identification of training programmes, training institutions, methods and approaches used in CPPB training as well as the identification of proposed areas to be improved and best practices.


During the event, the following aspects were raised by participants:


  • There is a high potential for collaboration given the complementarity of various institutions’ work. Such collaboration can significantly increase the chances of more coordinated and focused capacity building.
  • The detailing of the capacity building and scope of peace missions across institutions (police, military, civilian) is a novel element to be done across actors/ sectors. At the same time these experiences are an eye-opening moment and bring high value to the professional development of those engaged in capacity building as there is significant learning from each other.
  • Inter-institutional cooperation is essential. D2.5 Workshop summary report 1 © 2017 | Horizon 2020 – BES-13-2015 | 700583 13
  • Events such as this Round Table are a step forward for the conveners of the meeting and for Romania and the region around ensuring security in the Black Sea Region.
  • One envisioned next step could be the creation of a Romanian platform of institutions and organisations with capabilities for deployment in conflict prevention and peacebuilding missions.
  • Key questions and comments relate to a) the establishment of a functioning coordinating body for inter-institutional capacity building cooperation; b) the time needed to share and jointly define fundamental terminology and practices in training and capacity building (competences, curricula) as well as frameworks for structuring these competencies according to types of mission, levels of training and preparation and moment of mission; c) the availability of ‘learning modules’ that would be adapted to the very high volatility and dynamic present in the field; d) the need to establish the trust and validity of so-called ‘soft skills’ and then the proper and adequate training capacity for those especially in military and police missions; d) the need to understand across institutions the nature and details of peacebuilding/peacekeeping missions in order to enable cooperation and complementarity.


The findings from the workshop in general support the’s focus on networking and coordination, by bringing together a range of actors active in the CPPB (training) field to develop and refine new training standards.

Training for Peace: Training Standards and Quality Criteria

 September 18, 2017
Bilbao, Spain
Organiser: UDEUSTO

The ‘Training for Peace: Training Standards and Quality Criteria’ workshop was held on the 18th of September 2017 in Bilbao, Spain. The workshop consisted of two sessions open to the public and one closed session with the speakers and selected representatives. The agenda for the open sessions can be found in Annex. The workshop lasted from 10.00 to 16.00. The open sessions focused on ‘Training solutions to challenges confronted by international stakeholders engaged in peace-building missions’ and ‘Training experience and responses of local stakeholders in conflictaffected countries and territories’. The sessions were open to students and fellow researchers as UDEUSTO as well as the consortium partners. Invited speakers were:


  • Noemí Becerra, Director of Institutional Relations and Training, Helsinki España
  • Alfonso García-Vaquero, General of the Spanish Army, former head of EU Training Mission in Mali
  • Jesús A. Nuñez, Director, Instituto de Estudios sobre Conflictos y Acción Humanitaria – IECAH
  • Cecile Barbeito, Researcher, Peace Education Programme, Escola de Cultura de Pau
  • Enrique Eguren, Director, Protection International D2.5 Workshop summary report 1 © 2017 | Horizon 2020 – BES-13-2015 | 700583 10
  •  Kristian Herbolzheimer, Director of Transitions to Peace Programme (The Philippines and Colombia), Conciliation Resources


The closed session ran from 14h to 16h and focused more in depth on training standards and quality criteria in CPPB training. The workshop fed into the consortium’s work under Work Package 4, in particular, Deliverable 4.3.


The open sessions at the event supported several of the findings of the consortium under Work Package 3, focusing on current challenges in CPPB training. As such, the debates also support our findings under this Work Package. For example, speakers stressed the need for prevention, recurring gaps in the implementation of local ownership in CPPB activities, as well as funding constraints. Speakers also stressed the need for new (novel) methods, including e-learning approaches that support adult learning processes (see also the Deliverable 4.1. report on Novelty). The second sessions focused on what ‘peace training’ can learn from on the ground ‘peace education’, in divided societies. This analytical approach has also been adopted in the consortium’s work under Work Package 3, and especially in our work on the introduction of arts-based approaches in CPPB training (see 3.4. and 4.1. reports).


In the closed session, representatives first introduced the topic by contextualizing how CPPB training fits into wider educational standardization processes in Europe with reference to the Tuning process. Non-formal training including CPPB training tends to fall under European recommendations for vocational training. In terms of quality criteria, 4 categories of types of indicators exist: quality of the organization, of the learning process, of the staff, and of the results.


During the session, it became clear that the concept of ‘standardization’ caused considerable apprehensiveness among training providers. Indeed, the term ‘quality criteria’ was soon preferred. The basic tension that exists is that between a recognized need for quality criteria giving the costs of D2.5 Workshop summary report 1 © 2017 | Horizon 2020 – BES-13-2015 | 700583 11 training for donors such as state governments and participants alike, and a fear of domination and exclusion in the setting of standards in the sector. Power dynamics are important in this. For a small training organization it can be difficult to be included at the table when standards are being set as compared to large-scale and well-funded training organizations. There are severe financial and other practical constraints related to acquiring a seat at the sectoral table, all the more important as the sector of ‘CPBB’ training is often loosely defined and has no strict boundaries (see also the difficulties in defining the ‘humanitarian sector’). CPPB training can, for example, also include driving lessons (e.g. ENTRi Core Course), which is a technical aspect needed in CPPB, but fits into other standardization frameworks.


Furthermore, externally defined standards can be difficult to achieve for smaller organizations. The warning is also outspoken that programmes will be adopted to fit particular certification frameworks, while creativity and uniqueness in training will be negatively affected. Indeed, many organizations have a strong belief in the quality of their own training, and do not necessarily feel the need to adapt according to what others say is better. Indeed, several negative experiences were raised with existing needs to fit external standards (e.g. formal education). Standardization is also feared to reduce novelty in CPBB training. Finally, these issues also connect with the argument raised in the Coventry workshop (see above) on competition between training providers and the potentially exclusionary role standards can play.


Based on the discussion of the workshops, the consortium recognizes the challenges of defining quality criteria, and most importantly the need to develop inclusive processes in the definition of standards. On the one hand, the consortium aims to achieve this by organizing further workshops aimed at bringing together diverse training actors and practitioners, both from state and civil society actors. On the other hand, we are again strengthened in the belief that the field needs a safe and open, non-restrictive space for discussion on CPPB training, which is what we develop in the web platform.

Pan-European Workshop on Novel Approaches, Concepts and Methods

 July 3, 2017
Coventry, UK

The ‘Pan-European Workshop on Novel Approaches, Concepts and Methods’ was held on the 3 rd of July 2017 in Coventry, UK. The workshop was held in collaboration with the BUILDPEACE project. BUILDPEACE is an Erasmus+ project boost aimed at boosting the skills and competencies of Europeans in the public, third and private sectors to build peace and connect communities. It aims to improve the provision of teaching, learning and training within the peacebuilding industry by bringing together providers from the formal education (FE) and non-formal education (NFE) sectors into a community of practice. The partners investigate current deficits, weaknesses and missed opportunities in educational provision across the field, addressing these with innovative tools for learners, as well as tools and mechanisms for learning providers to facilitate cross-sectoral working. The BUILDPEACE project has clear synergies with the consortium’s objectives and is managed by Coventry University.


The workshop was held in the framework of a 3-day BUILDPEACE event held at Coventry. Participants to this event were invited to also participate in a 2-hour session on whether and how to introduce Novelty in CPPB training, its opportunities and constraints. The list of participating organisations at the Novelty Workshop was as follows:


  • Kadir Has Üniversitesi (Turkey)
  • Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University (Turkey)
  • Xchange Scotland (UK)
  • The Coordinating Committee for International Voluntary Service (CCIVS) (France)
  • Wings of Hope (BiH)
  • Young Researchers of Serbia (Serbia)


The workshop was attended by 29 participants from a range of European countries, 9 men and 21 women, with the majority of participants (18) coming from the non-formal sector and CPPB training institutes. The workshop was based around the following three themes/key questions:


  • Key Question 1: What experiences do you have of learning novel approaches to ways of working?
  • Key Question 2: To what extent does your organization facilitate the processing of new ideas, and what ideas/initiatives would make the introduction of novel concepts and methods easier?
  • Key Question 3: What barriers there may be for organisations in their adoption of novel concepts, approaches and methods?


Apart from the introductory presentation of the project, the workshop made use of interactive methods in order to stimulate discussion among workshop participants. The ‘Novelty’ Workshop principally fed into the’s consortium’s work in Work Package 4. The 4.1. report on ‘Novelty in CPPB Training: An analysis of approaches, content and method’ discusses the output of the workshop more in depth, and how it has built on in the partners’ desk-based research of introducing novelty in CPPB training approaches, contents, and methods. The key finding from the workshop is the acknowledged presence of internal and external constraints to novelty in CPPB training common to the work of civil society and NGOs, from which the majority of participants stemmed. These are funding challenges due to the need for external donor-funding and projects limited in time, and as a result, constraints on staff time and an unwillingness of bureaucracy and management to change existing work procedures.


For instance, many participants lamented the lack of time to explore and train on the use of new methods. Rather than approaches and content, new methods were a major concern for participants, including the use of ICT methods. Participants often did not feel supported by management and experienced administrative constraints. Competition in the CPPB training world plays a role in hampering the development of novel methods, even though in principle competition would be expected to lead to innovation. Nonetheless, innovation often stems from exchange within and outside a specific field and as the workshop revealed, it is precisely this lack of exchange and protection of own training formula’s that hamper growth (see also the D.3.5. report on current challenges in CPPB training). Indeed, the workshop itself led to exchange of new ideas on methods, demonstrating the usefulness of creating safe spaces for the sharing of experiences. This key finding also supports the objective of developing a web platform that functions as an exchange hub in CPPB training (see the Deliverable 4.2. report).