Conciliation Resources

Conciliation Resources
Name	Conciliation Resources
Formation	1994
Type	Non-governmental organization
Headquarters	London
Region served	International
Leader title	Chief Executive
Leader name	Tim Chapman

Conciliation Resources is an independent peacebuilding organisation founded in 1994 that works to prevent and resolve violent conflict through dialogue, mediation and policy advocacy. It operates internationally with a focus on sustained engagement in countries affected by protracted disputes, post-conflict reconstruction and transitional processes. The organisation engages with a wide range of actors including negotiators, civil society, and regional bodies to influence peace processes and peacebuilding practice.

History

Conciliation Resources emerged in the aftermath of the Cold War and the conflicts in the Balkans and Great Lakes regions, drawing on comparative practice from organisations such as International Crisis Group, Search for Common Ground, Mediation Support Unit (UN), Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, and European Centre for Conflict Prevention. Early work linked to peace initiatives in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo and Rwanda, while later engagement expanded to contexts including Sierra Leone, Liberia, Nepal, Colombia, and Myanmar. The organisation developed networks with mediators involved in the Good Friday Agreement, actors from the African Union and regional organisations such as the Economic Community of West African States and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Over time, it adapted methods used by actors like Carter Center mediators and advisors to incorporate lessons from processes such as the Accord on Nagorno-Karabakh and the Oslo Accords. Leadership transitions and programmatic shifts reflected evolving donor landscapes exemplified by relationships with foundations like the MacArthur Foundation and multilateral funders such as the European Union.

Mission and Approach

The organisation's mission emphasizes dialogue, mediation, and learning to support inclusive peace processes, drawing on comparative frameworks used by John Paul Lederach-influenced networks, practitioners from Folke Bernadotte Academy, and peace researchers associated with Harvard University and University of Bradford. Its approach combines facilitation of confidential talks, support for transitional justice dialogues similar to mechanisms in South Africa and Timor-Leste, and backing for local peace infrastructures akin to initiatives led by Local Peace Committees (Nepal) and Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Sierra Leone). It prioritises inclusion of women and youth following protocols inspired by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 and engages with regional mediators from entities such as the African Union Commission and the Organisation of American States. Methodologically, it integrates practices from the fields represented by Conciliation Resources peers including International Alert and Search for Common Ground.

Programs and Projects

Programs have targeted both country-specific and thematic challenges. Country portfolios have included sustained programming in Colombia during negotiations involving the FARC and stakeholders in the Colombian government, engagement in Myanmar alongside civil society groups and ethnic armed organisations, and support for dialogue in the Great Lakes (Africa) region involving actors from Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. Thematic projects address land and natural resources disputes with parallels to initiatives in Peru and Guatemala, extractives-focused engagements similar to those in Nigeria and South Africa, and transitional justice dialogues modeled on experiences from Chile and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The organisation runs capacity-building for negotiators and mediators comparable to programs by Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue and convenes multi-stakeholder forums drawing participants from United Nations missions, regional bodies like Economic Community of West African States and civil society coalitions such as Women Waging Peace.

Publications and Research

The organisation produces policy reports, case studies and practice guides aimed at diplomats, mediators and civil society actors. Its outputs engage with scholarship and practice from institutions including Chatham House, International Institute for Strategic Studies, London School of Economics, and University of Oxford specialists. Publications have examined ceasefire design, local peace processes, and gender-sensitive mediation, drawing on comparative examples from Northern Ireland, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, and Colombia. Research collaborations have involved academics and practitioners associated with Kings College London, Berghof Foundation, and United States Institute of Peace, and the organisation's briefings inform debates in forums such as UN General Assembly and European Parliament committees dealing with peace and security.

Partnerships and Funding

Partnerships span international NGOs, regional organisations, research institutions and philanthropic foundations. Frequent partners include International Alert, Oxfam, Mercy Corps, Norwegian Refugee Council, and academic centres at University of Edinburgh and SOAS University of London. Funding has come from a mix of bilateral donors such as Department for International Development (UK), Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, multilateral sources like the European Commission, and foundations including Open Society Foundations and Ford Foundation. The organisation also collaborates with United Nations entities including UN Women and UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs on joint initiatives.

Impact and Criticism

Conciliation Resources is credited with discreet facilitation roles in back-channel talks and with strengthening local dialogue mechanisms in contexts such as Nepal and Sierra Leone, contributing to negotiated outcomes and community-level agreements reminiscent of processes in Guatemala and Mozambique. Evaluations have highlighted its role in capacity-building for negotiators and in integrating gender perspectives into mediation processes. Criticism has included questions about the transparency of confidential mediation, debates over the influence of donor priorities similar to critiques levelled at international NGOs more broadly, and concerns about the scalability of local peacebuilding efforts compared with national political settlements exemplified by debates surrounding the Peace of Westphalia-era diplomacy and modern peace accords. Independent reviews have recommended enhanced monitoring and clearer articulation of impact metrics alongside continued emphasis on local ownership and regional engagement.

Category:Peacebuilding organizations