THE PRAGMORA PROCESS

The Pragmora Process is a rigorous method for developing and selecting the specific conflict resolution actions that Pragmora and its international network of activists advocate. Through this systematic process, all available conflict resolution ideas are compiled and then vetted against three specific criteria by diverse experts internationally.

Pragmora's advocacy positions for conflict prevention and resolution are at the very heart of our organisation. They are the unique contribution we make to peace – putting realistic advocacy measures into the hands of grassroots peace activists. It is imperative that we get these measures right. What we tell the decision-makers to do must be right.

Each proposed measure is weighed against specific evaluation criteria and selection considerations. The ideal process that we endeavour to adhere to is described below.

Vetting 1 (Preliminary) Drawing on background research and conversations with a small group of experts, we prepare a preliminary list of recommendations for non-violent solutions to a specific conflict. A Pragmora senior analyst then conducts on-the-ground research in the conflict area. In-person interviews are undertaken with diverse individuals to solicit additional suggestions for non-violent solutions and to vet the existing recommendations. On-the-ground interviewees may include policy experts, government officials, local and international NGO staff, UN officials, development consultants, academics, media and community groups.

Vetting 2 (Re-assurance) For each potential solution that 'survived' the first round of vetting, we conduct extensive research to explore its viability as an advocacy measure for Pragmora and for an international grassroots movement. We then create a smaller list of 4–8 possible solutions. Each of these is written out formally and the list is exposed to a second round of vetting with experts. This second round of vetting includes many of the experts who participated in the Preliminary Vetting, but also includes additional experts in order to get more points of view and to get 'fresh eyes' on the potential advocacy actions.

Vetting 3 (Confirmation) Based on the feedback from the second round of vetting, we conduct any required additional research and intelligence gathering, weigh the remaining options again the evaluation criteria and selection considerations, and then create a final list of the 2-4 specific advocacy actions we intend to promote. These measures are vetted for a third and final time to confirm that they are appropriate. Again, the list of 2-4 measures will be vetted with some of the previous experts involved, but also with some new experts who will see the measures for the first time with 'fresh eyes.'

Evaluation Criteria for Vetting

1. Could advocating this measure do harm?
   Is there any way that an international peace movement advocating this measure or that the implementation of this measure could exacerbate a conflict, destabilize a situation, put lives at risk, or otherwise do harm?

2. Is there a possibility of success?
   What is the likelihood that an international peace movement could apply enough influence/pressure on decision-makers that they this measure implemented?

3. If implemented, to what extend would it foster peace? Would it have a notable impact in helping to resolve the conflict and/or foster a stable peace?

Considerations for Selection of Advocacy Actions

Don't duplicate efforts. If there is already a strong international lobby for this measure, let the existing lobby proceed. This may particularly be the case if the lobby includes international bodies, such as the United Nations, or powerful countries such as the United States and the European Union.

Support existing small or modest efforts. If there is already some degree of advocacy on this measure, it may be efficient for Pragmora to supplement and magnify this voice with its own grassroots network.

Choose diverse options. Do not focus all efforts on civil society, legalities, development aid, etc.

Choose options that focus on diverse sets of decision-makers. We do not want to be writing letters to the same individuals making three or four different sets of demands.

Is the advocacy measure easily understandable? That is, can we give one sentence and a person can immediately see why this measure would help resolve a conflict or stabilize peace? If the measure requires a lot of explanation, then it is likely to be unwieldy. An exception would be if we would like to educate the public about this option and its link to peace-building.

Can concrete, easy-to-implement Advocacy Actions for individuals to udnertake be developed?