Credibility and trust, key elements for a FAO honest broker role
in conflict situations over natural resources
DRAFT 1 FOR DISCUSSION
(this article is based on a series of ongoing interventions and has to be considered as an initial proposal to devise the usefulness of such an indicator: comments/suggestions can be sent to: paologroppo60@gmail.com)
Paolo Groppo, Territorial Development Officer, FAO
Francesca Marzatico, Consultant
Marco De Gaetano, Consultant1
March 2017
1. Introduction
In 2002 FAO has published a set of global data on the availability of natural resources, especially land2. As was clear from the data and the analysis, land categorized as “suitable” for agricultural production tended to dwindle, and this even more when moving up into the “very suitable” quality category.
Similar analyzes were also made for the availability of water3, raising a warning that was initially not heard. As data accumulated and new trends towards the grabbing of land (and other natural resources) became more prominent in the world media, accompanied by growing number of disputes4 and/or conflicts5 over access and/or use of natural resources, two issues have gained importance in the development agenda: how to analyze local dynamics of conflict and, at a more operational level, what to do when requested to intervene.
These represent two complementary fields of work, with the Academia more inclined towards the first, and the Humanitarian agencies caring most of the second one. As Brück et alii (2015), reminds us, the theme of how to analyze the conflicts took two separate directions in turn: “The most common direction has been the use of socio-economic datasets in conflict-affected regions that were not explicitly collected for the analysis of processes or consequences of violent conflict per se, but either contain a number of variables (often self-reported) that can be used as proxies for human exposure to violent conflict, or can be creatively merged with conflict event data. The second direction is based on data specifically collected to identify the causes and functions of violent conflict at the micro-level. This is the ideal approach because it allows researchers to tailor the surveys to directly address important research questions about different aspects of conflict processes, their causes, and their consequences. It is, however, a less common approach due to the high costs of these surveys, the level of resources required, and the ethical and security constraints associated with doing primary research in areas of violence.”
Different is the case of what to do, and how far can we go into an issue that is not only very complex to be addressed but also very political in nature. This is probably why, as a matter of fact, even in emergency operations, the land and rights issue, (almost) never appeared as a priority.
An additional element that adds to this complexity, is the vertical structure of the main agencies of the United Nations. This has favored a sectoral vision, resource by resource, without a glance ensembles that would allow to better understand the dynamics in progress. In this way the issue of land was seen separately from the issue of water, forests, or shepherds, each analysed separately, and with responsibility handled by different technical groups, with a preferred technical approach, leaving the political economy dimension outside.
In recent years, efforts have been underway (and are still far from being concluded), to start moving the centre of interest from the resource (land, water ...) to the actors operating in those contexts6.
The underlying justification for this shift is that conflicts, by large, are man-made, so if we really want to look for possible way-out, one has to start by the actors themselves rather than by the natural resource. Understanding the logics of the actors, that are complex in time and space, also allows to get a more holistic picture. We thus get into new spheres of actions that are represented by the set of motivations, perceptions, interests and actions that are put in place by the various actors. Finally, the (search of) understanding of the logic of the actors, also allows to scale up more easily into the upper floors, those where the "governance" of resources is decided.
Focusing on the actors, their different visions and interests, means looking for a path that would bring them to a reciprocal "modus vivendi" respecting as far as possible the diversity of interests and visions, and working to ensure that what will be agreed between the parties will be as sustainable as possible (the sustainability of these agreements also depends on the kind of actors involved in the process; for example an agreements on land use - grazing and farming areas - achieved by traditional leaders could easily be spoiled by armed groups or governments parties fueling the conflict due to higher political and power reasons). This necessarily implies a new interest into aspects that traditionally were excluded from the "technical" work on resources, in particular the analysis of "power" and the existing asymmetries between the various actors. This is because at the basis of any standing agreement, there is always an effort to reduce asymmetries, in order to make actors "comfortable" in putting in place the agreement.
An agreement on the rules for access and use of a certain territorial space does not imply that in the end the parties due to agree on the same vision or interest thereon, since these different visions/interests are the product of the many socio-economic and historical trends. The key point is to ensure that the final agreement be equitable for the parties and that the mutual feeling becomes one where they agree to move forward in putting it in practice. In other words, that it is possible to move towards improved social cohesion built on the respect for diversity.
A critical element in this path is the process itself, to be promoted by third figures (the Facilitation Team, see point 5 below), which must be perceived as neutral and technically valid element for a peacemaking journey and change. Peace agreements might also be fully managed by community leaders while the third parties could intervene to support the implementation of the agreement achieved by the parties in conflict.
Added to that is another key element: the willingness of the parties to enter into these processes. This is a political decision where the Facilitation Team has very limited (if not) clue.
From this long introduction, it should be clear that the simple shifting of the attention from resource to the people requires some methodological adaptation. Natural sciences will continue to be important, but they will become less relevant compared to Social sciences, since the core question is how to build confidence and credibility that gradually allow to approach increasingly challenging levels of difficulty concerning access, use and management of natural resources.
2. Perceptions
As said before, working on conflicts around natural resources through a "people'-centered" approach based on respect for diversity, dialogue7 and the promotion of social cohesion8 means entering into the world of "perceptions”9. There are two aspects that should be considered (when seeing from our UN perspective):
- the perception vis-a-vis the UN agencies, considering them as possible external facilitators of the conflict resolution and peace building process and
- the mutual perception of the concerned parties (as well as of any other stakeholder in the conflict).
For these reasons, the philosophy behind the GreeNTD proposal is that of the otherness10. As Leone explains, "It is in Hegel's reflection that the thinking ego character, even while expressing a strong subjectivity, loses its self-sufficiency and is subjected to the recognition by the Other [...] Hegel puts the relationship with the “other” as mutual constitutive condition, shifting the emphasis from individual subjectivity to intersubjectivity. In this perspective, therefore, the more that allows the subject to be defined even in their difference, and becomes a necessary part of the individual's identity formation through a dialectical process aimed at mutual recognition."11
The key principles on which GreeNTD is based-up are:
- A change of vision of the other. The conditions of a conflict lead, inevitably, to regard the other as the absolute enemy; with an enemy, there is just no choice but to battle it across the board to try to destroy it. GreeNTD proposes to move from opposition to cooperation, from a destructive approach to a constructive. The other is seen as a person you try to talk about common points and create a solution that will satisfy both.
- The need to recognize the legitimacy and the real power of the other. This is the logical continuation of the previous point: each of the parts involved must accept that the other part has its own legitimacy and power, be it legal or not, political or not and that requests and / or claims of the other part are a result of such legitimacy and power.
- The acceptance by stakeholders that the State or any other institution entitled (UN Peacekeeping force) should be the only one in the monopoly of force. This implies, on the one hand, the need to strengthen the capacities of state institutions and those related to the theme of land, and on the other the awareness and subsequent acceptance that parallel forms of "armies" must be brought to disappear as part of the process.
- The transparency of the Facilitation Team (FT), especially when carried out by a UN agency (FPH, 1996). This includes skills in communication and negotiation as well as knowledge of the area and the issues related to this.
The GreeNTD promotes a rights-based approach, with a strong emphasis on social legitimacy. This is because, in an ever-increasing way, we observe conflicts related to access to land and water and other natural resources, where the two logics, an external, official and legal, with little credibility in the eyes of the local population and one inside, socially legitimate but not legally recognized, are not able to find a common ground, and thus they can become extremely dangerous and uncontrollable (Razafindrabe, 1998). The positioning of GreeNTD is therefore at the intersection of these trends, trying to build bridges between two logics otherwise legitimized, focusing on the socio-anthropological dimension and legitimacy more than the technical one.
Following Gili (Gili, 2005) credibility is nowadays considered as something that is recognized by others: a subjective factor and therefore not objective. Credibility is always a relationship between sender and receiver. It represents the quality of a person or of a thing that makes it credible12 (in the eyes of the beholder). This relational nature explains why it can happen that those who are credible to a part or the public may not be the same way and for the same reasons for another.
The perception of credibility therefore should be seen in two spatial dimensions: a vertical (Us, meaning the Facilitation Team - FT, and Them13, understood as the set of stakeholders) and a horizontal (between the various stakeholders).
The vertical dimension, in turn, should be divided taking into account the uniqueness (relative) of the "us" of the FT and the variety of "others" to which it is addressed, while the horizontal in turn will vary in the different relationships between the actors involved. We will come back later on the question of the uniqueness of the "us", as the kind of interventions that are proposed are held in the framework of resilience / emergency operations promoted by FAO in protracted crises contexts. In these situations, the “us”- FT can be confused, in the perception of the actors, with “us”-FAO more in general, and then running the risk that the perception of the credibility of the “us”-FT be confused with the global perception linked to various interventions that FAO is promoting in those territories.
The vertical axis works to increase the perceived credibility of the FT by the whole actors with whom the FT will have to deal with. Increase credibility of the FT is important (in order to promote a process of dialogue, negotiation and concerted action), but also making it being perceived in a similar manner by all parties.
Consequently, the "measurement" of the perceived credibility of the FT in respect of the various parties involved helps not only to get an idea of how the process is going forward as a whole, but also to identify any distortions to be corrected during the process. A credibility perceived differently by different stakeholders can play down, and cancel it, the opportunity to carry forward the process of dialogue, negotiation and concerted action.
The horizontal axis, instead, works on the mutually perceived credibility among the various stakeholders. Again, the aim is to be able to measure how the credibility and therefore the confidence increase between the parties, as long as the process moves on, but at the same time must serve to alert of possible distortions of the process itself. The perceived credibility among stakeholders must not only generally increase (if the process is working properly) but must also increase in order to reduce any asymmetry of perceptions, so that slowly establishing a degree of uniformity in the perceived credibility by each other. However, mutually perceived credibility among the main stakeholders might be jeopardized at any time by other actors (also within the same community/tribe/ethnic group), quite impossible to involve into the negotiation process, mainly interested in fueling the conflicts rather than supporting. In such case, the power asymmetries and conflict drivers’ analysis may identify several levels of conflict drivers and stakeholders. Thus, the FT should select those levels of conflicts drivers that could be realistically tackled with the involvement of key stakeholders interested in engaging the peace building process.
3. Confidence, credibility and reputation
Confidence, credibility and reputation are variables that determine the fate of entire organizations. When they assume a negative meaning, they can destroy very fast any human organization, preventing functionality, effectiveness and ultimately undermining the very raison d'ȇtre.14
The word confidence rather than explicit, hides. It speaks of a slippery concept, particularly by blending boundaries. The confidence -way of being, of pose- refers to an ancient virtue, celebrated by every religion, faith.15 Confidence, as Luhmann says, concerns the transition between the known world, familiar, and the unknown, the disturbing: in a word, the Other (Luhmann, 2002).
Create a climate of confidence in an environment means to structure it so that the expectations of a person with respect to the behavior of others are confirmed. We trust the other if you know that you can predict how they will behave in given situations. Trust/confidence is therefore closely tied to the expectations of what the others will do if put in certain situations. It is connected to the institutions and to the right that every society uses, as constraints that allow you to estimate what will be the behavior of others in a given system of rules, customs and punishments. Trust therefore has a strong sociocultural base.
Credibility comes from belief. Here, too, a person, a group, an institution are credible if they can align over time different trustees outcomes. I.e., they possess a credibility capital built in the course of their history. Here the emphasis is often placed on the coincidence between words, actions and outcomes of the actor: a person who says A, acting on B and gets C effect, inevitably sees a drop of his/her own spendable capital of credibility in the public space.
We work on the credibility to turn it into influence, understood as the art of making things possible, with the help of others (Owen, 2015), with the aim of finding a modus vivendi between the various interests at stake, compared with limited resources, that are acceptable to all the parties.
In the work in protracted crises situations related to natural resources, the credibility has to be seen as a continuous building process. It can be considered as a "shadow of the future", a long shadow that will affect the future relationship (Axelrod, 1984). Being a subjective element, dependent on how the mind is made in terms of memories, emotions, experiences and logical skills, it is therefore difficult to make it ponderable. Adding to this the fact that we (often) operate in contexts of conflict or immediate post-conflict, with limited factual information, the credibility becomes an element able to complete the limited existing experiential information and influence positively (or negatively) on the unfolding of difficult task of facilitation.
Finally, reputation is a judgment on the value of a person, or organization, by those who interact with it from different perspectives. Everyone builds their own history reputational for different uses, and defends the public space against those who have an interest in seeing it reduced. Reputation is important because it can give birth to a feeling of confidence almost natural16.
4. The reason for a Perceived Credibility Index (PCI)
Our attention goes to the credibility and its progressive construction during the proposed route of dialogue, negotiation and concerted action. The raison d'ȇtre of an index of this type is the need to "translate" as far as possible the sensory elements in a value scale that indicates not only the carrier but also the "quantum" of that path. In the process of fostering and (possible) resolution of land conflicts, we can glimpse two moments:
- an initial moment (phase zero) where the parties send initial signals of the possibility to open a serious dialogue, but when still dominates the mutual distrust and where it is unclear who might stand as a process facilitator and
- later (negotiation phase), when the negotiation is initiated and begins to transform into concrete products.
|
Phase Zero
|
|
Negotiation Phase
|
During the Phase Zero the key objective is to break the ice between the parties, to install a credible Facilitation Team and begin to create a minimum of credibility between the parties. The PCI will take on its full meaning in this first Phase Zero part. How long this phase zero will be, will depend on the complexity of the problem as well as of the actors involved. No guarantee that the process will naturally evolve from phase zero to the negotiation one can be given.
During the Phase Zero it is necessary to highlight a starting point, a baseline, and dispose of a value scale that allows to visualize the results (positive or negative) achieved in the period under review.
A further reason for introducing the PCI is to improve the accountability towards donors of actions undertaken. The primary purpose of the application of GreeNTD in protracted crises contexts is not, and cannot be, "solving" (eliminate) the conflicts, as a substantial component of human relationships, but to establish a dynamic that leads to lower level of confrontation to retract these within a process of normal human relations: dialogue, negotiation and concerted actions, respecting different views and interests, resolved by methods that are no longer violent.
5. The Facilitation Team (FT)
The focus of the dialogue process proposed by GreeNTD is centered on the work being done by the Facilitation Team (FT). The emergence of these new professionals (at least within FAO) requires some initial clarification. The TF should be understood as a team of people able to promote the opportunities for dialogue and concerted action, with specific technical capacity (depending on the technical issues under discussion) to which are added the ability for mediation and personal facilitation (knowledge of local customs and traditions, listening and communication skills, mastery of interpretive techniques and relational psychology, legal knowledge, ability to put yourself at the place of the other ...).
Their role is to stand as a neutral agent (honest broker) in front of the actors of the local context into play. As a neutral (as much as possible) party they must be able to promote an analysis of the territorial system and its actors, to promote a dialogue with the actors, in order to grasp the opportunities and what are the necessary means to act. Interfere in local territorial dynamics, especially in protracted crisis situations and / or conflicts, it means bringing modifications to the reality of the moment.
The dialogue is a relationship between equals, or rather, a relationship between people who are able to introduce their own subjectivity, their specific needs, their professional experience, their particular interests as well as their rights. The listening to the other allows you to understand without identifying their aspirations, "the commitment to recognize equal dignity for all is realized in the instant when I open myself to the discovery of its difference."17 Dialogue is not a passive learning in which the learner is regarded as a simple receptacle; the main function of this teaching is to pool existing knowledge.
The conditions indicated by the operators to ensure that an approach of this type is possible may be summarized as follows:
• listen and educate to the listening;
• benefit from an appropriate open mind;
• move beyond fear;
• work in confidence;
• create the most favorable contexts.
Listening and openness are bound to change and therefore the acceptance of change through learning: in this way, the fear of difference can be overcome and we can then hope to establish a stable and enduring dialogue. In other words, listening only makes sense when seen together with a desire to understand and learn.
Listening, openness and change interpenetrate. The intention is to go beyond a self-centred approach and hostile to the others: in fact, the flexibility and the ability to receive external pulses are psychological qualities without which a dialogue is not possible. Fear is an obstacle to dialogue, although it is the result of personal insecurity. The purpose of the operation is the obtaining of a change, that is, an approach of points of view, or a more intimate knowledge and therefore an improvement of interpersonal relationships.
The complexity of the facilitation process requires clarification on two notions that constitute the extremes within which we move: the concept of advocacy (the taking of position in favor of someone or in defense of something) and empowerment (being put in power status). The Facilitation can be seen as an action that aims to be:
• a defense of the rights of an actor (advocacy) that has hard time to make his/her needs recognized and to meet them, taking his/her defence orally or by representing it;
• as a support (empowerment) and help a person to ensure that they can make better use of information on the most suitable strategies to solve its problems, and that, thanks to this, get as much autonomy as possible in defence of their positions.18
To do all this, the TF should be able to build around them a level of credibility based on concrete actions, so that this "capital" can be converted into trust to be placed in the relations between the parties which, in situations of protracted crises, tend to deny any credibility to another. The extreme mutual suspicion of the parties in dispute leads to a lack of confidence in the other, an absence that does not allow them to embark on a common path.
The result of a process of dialogue, negotiation and concerted action will be represented by a progressive series of Socio-Ecological Territorial Agreements - SETA). The final result (the SETA agreement), however, will depend mainly on the will of the parties, in the sense that the FT can stimulate the parties, helping preparing scenarios but the final decision will always remain in the hands of the parties involved.
It is suggested to start from the grassroots level and to small problems, to be possibly solved with limited resources and time. These initial actions might not be central to the core of the problem. What matters is the fact of having being indicated by the parties as issues on which a dialogue can begin, in order to simplify the initial trust building exercise. Step by step the level of complexity of the issues to be dealt with will raise, and thus coming into increasingly complex and conflicting issues.
The emphasis that the GreeNTD puts on the process, implies an important work of critical reading of who and why we are required to intervene (step 1 - Views of the GreeNTD approach). This initial work helps to better understand the goal of those who required the intervention (to avoid risks of manipulation: see GreeNTD, 2016: Who is are requesting the intervention and for what reasons), who are the main actors involved and the issues at stake. This phase also aims to raise awareness of the FT counterparties taking into account the perceived credibility that is the image, which has been building over time, of the organization to which we belong (see section 3). Home of the FT is to separate the general perception about the organization as a whole, and center the attention on the specific facilitation work related to the dispute/conflict.
As shown in the figure below, what should be avoided is to be in the position 2 (manipulated). Ideally we should to assume a leading role as long as is necessary (3 - Locomotive) and thus aiming at position 4 (Wise - when the process of dialogue, negotiation and concerted action will be able to walk on his legs).
Source: own elaboration
For this reason, the calculation of the perceived credibility index (PCI) cannot be done immediately at the beginning of the work: the perception of the parties most likely would relate almost exclusively to the Organization as a whole and, specifically, to the other ongoing operations on which the FT has no control.
Another reason why an initial time is requested, is the need to understand who the actors really involved are (certain actors may be "hidden", that is not always directly visible, and this would represent a problem; see GreeNTD, 2016: Stakeholders and territory), since the scope is not to measure the credibility with any person but only with those who have an interest in the ongoing process (stakeholders).
6. The Perceived Credibility Index (PCT): a proposal for the initial baseline
Once the initial diagnosis of the territory and the actors carried out, the types of credibility that we want to assess include:
- Vertical axis: credibility of FAO as Territorial Facilitator (TF)
- 1.a. To be measured against the parties
- 1.b. To be measured against the formal institutions of government and administration
(1.a and 1.b can also be further broken down by gender).
- Horizontal axis: the credibility of the parties involved, in order to bring out a common ground on which to negotiate (related in particular to the actions that FAO could promote).
The three main aspects to be considered are:
a) The speech (spoken, written and / or images) (as a proxy for the "expertise" perceived by the actors)
b) The realization of actions (the perception of the desire to keep promises - honesty)
c) The administration and management of available resources (alternative choices where to place resources)
These three aspects need to be analyzed separately, but always thinking as part of a single unit.
Speech. The initial diagnosis, as mentioned above, also serves to raise awareness about the TF to the parties involved. Formal and informal meetings, more or less confidential, attitudes, ways of speaking, body language, everything will enter the mix of building the perception of interested parties.
What matters is not only the quality of the exhibition, but above all it concerns the congruence with point b (realization) and c (administration / management). The overall assessment of the "speech" will have an immediate value (measured by this component), with its value (increasing from 1 to 10) and a more thoughtful one that will depend on the congruence between what was said and what was done (which will be measured with the second component).
The realization of actions: here the point is of measuring how much of that promised was actually realized (or at least put in the pipeline) and the appropriateness of the actions to the underlying problem. In this way we will also have an idea whether the actions that have been proposed on the basis of the initial diagnosis, were considered to be appropriate or not.
Examples19:
- Activities implemented with the involvement of both communities members (Abyei livestock vaccination campaign)
- Community/leaders video interviews/signed documents declaring FAO as mediator actor
Actions can measured individually or globally. The important thing is to get a single final value, with an increasing score from 1 to 5.
As regards the appropriateness, it is proposed to use a scale from 1 to 5.
The total score of the realization factor will be the sum of the two partial (minimum 2, maximum 10).
The administration and management of available resources. Working with limited resources we are often confronted with the problem of having to choose between different uses of these resources, and often our choices depend on factors not always controllable (for example, moving from one budget line to another that cannot be accepted by the donors of the project in a short time).
Here we will measure whether the resources allocated on previous activities have been well spent (to the extent that budget details can be known). Score 1 to 5
Add to that a judgment on the choices made between one and the other, all in order to figure out if you could do better or not (from the point of view of the parties involved). Score 1 to 5
Total score of the administration/management factor will be the sum of the two partial (minimum 2, maximum 10).
The final score (for each group of interest) will result from the sum of the various partial. This will then give a baseline, better indicating with whom of those interest groups/actors there will be a need to work harder, as well as on which aspects.
With whom do we measure it: the best choice is to do this exercise with both the institutions of government and administration, and with the parties, keeping them separately. We will thus have different values, one for each group of interest.
The Horizontal axis: credibility of the Parties
We can distinguish three dimensions: the first will cover the personal perception (as I see my personal credibility), the second will be an active perception of the other's credibility (what I think of You) and the third will concern the passive perception (as I think to be perceived by You). This exercise can be extended to as many parties are involved.
The results will give us a concrete indication of what dimension it is necessary to pay more attention.
Example:
A thinks to be a credible interlocutor. A thinks that B be is very credible, but in turn he thinks to be perceived as not at all credible by B.
B has a high self-esteem and thinks to be very credible. B thinks that A has a limited credibility and to be perceived as very credible by A.
7. Credibility of the role and credibility in the role
The TF will inevitably carry on a judgment, positive or negative, regarding the organization to which it belongs. The moment the TF presents itself as emissaries of the very same organization, for its world-historical weight, there is a credibility of the role that influence positively or negatively the perception that the actors will have of the TF.
Considering that the PCI index would measure in an as objective as possible manner the increase of credibility between the parties and in respect of the Facilitation Team, the interference caused by the "weight" of the organization will need some way checked in order to isolate the quality of the work performed on the credibility, by reducing the weight of the external elements. It will then be needed to try the PCI index in real conditions to get a more precise idea about how much can weigh the factor of belonging to the organization and how it can be "isolated".
Along with this dimension, there is another who, following Gili (Gili, 2005), can be called credibility in the role. It is equivalent to the way a specific TF plays that role, with their own personal strengths and weaknesses. Desrosiers20 proposes a number of specific areas of care that can help improve this type of credibility:
1. Expert: Do you know the subject you are talking about? If you do not know much, or do not have the answer, say so. It's better than saying anything. People will appreciate your honesty and humility. Prove what you say, check your sources before you move something. Avoid the "It seems that ..."
2. Experienced: The more the people see that you have experience and the more you will be credible. So show your experience, if possible, in connection with the subject.
3. Confident: Do you demonstrate confidence or you hesitate? Watch your non-verbal language, posture, and handshake. Stand up straight and smile. Publicize your successes!
4. Informed: Do you stay informed in your field? Develop your skills and abilities. Be attentive to new trends, you perfect. Become a source of reference in your field. This will bring them others you consult or seek your opinion.
5. Just: Are you fair and equitable? Do not give preferential treatment.
6. Interested: Are you able to show interest in others? In their history, their needs, their realities? Do you share your success? Give credit to others, if any, when they deserve. Cultivate respect. Respect stands for consideration, courtesy and above all respect attracts respect. Listen respectfully to others.
7. Consistent: Are you consistent in your words? Do they stand or if you contradict yourself in subsequent sentences? Be consistent and do what you say! Do not change your mind or direction constantly.
8. Like: How did you like your audience? Focus on your similarities, not your differences.
9. Positive: Be positive in the topics you are addressing. People want to hear a positive speaker and not a victim of life.
10. Affirmative: Be assertive in your comments.
11. Enthusiastic: Enthusiastic people are contagious, we want to be like them. Leave your personal hassles aside, others have enough of them.
12. Active: The action creates the perception of will, desire to do something. We want to follow people who do things. So if you say you will do something, take action. Lead by example.
Finally, it should be noted that these two types of credibility (of the role and in the role) influence each other and, usually, if you have a socially credible role, we tend to interpret it so as to strengthen it. This is exactly the sense of the TF work in giving life to a process of dialogue, negotiation and concerted actions in situations of conflict or post-conflict.
Footnotes:
- Marco De Gaetano is Head of Office, UNFAO field office, Abyei Administrative Area, South-Sudan
- FAO. 2002. Global Agro-Ecological Zoning (GAEZ) http://www.fao.org/nr/land/databasesinformation-systems/aez-agro-ecological-zoning-system/en/
- FAO http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/water_res/index.stm
- Dispute: to argue, debate about (something); to struggle against; resist
- Conflict: competitive or opposing action of incompatibles; antagonistic state or action
- FAO. 2016. Land and People in Protracted Crisis – Building stability on the land
- FAO. 2016. Negotiation, Environment and Territorial Development - Green Negotiated Territorial Development (GreeNTD). More than a methodology – an approach for improving equitable access and sustainable management of territories http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6603e.pdf
- “The concept of social cohesion refers, in ordinary language, the idea of strong social relationships, built on land belonging or solidarity: a set of meanings from indeterminate boundaries, hence, in the social sciences, the difficulty of developing a precise definition”(authors translation) http://www.aggiornamentisociali.it/easyne2/LYT.aspx?Code=agso&IDLYT=769&ST=SQL&SQL=ID_Documento=4697
- Perception (from the Latin perceptio, percipio) is the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the environment. (Wikipedia)
- https://othersociologist.com/otherness-resources/
- Leone, S. 2012. La relazione speculare tra identità e alterità: dialogo e riconoscimento tra riflessi e ombre. Rivista internazionale di filosofia online, vol. VII, n. 14 http://www.metabasis.it/articoli/14/14_Leone.pdf
- http://www.gaultiercollette.ch/pink/la-credibilite-se-construit-la-confiance-se-gagne/
- Pink Floyd: Us and Them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDbeqj-1XOo
- Antrocom. 2011. Fiducia, credibilità e reputazione... e l’antropologia? http://www.veneto.antrocom.org/blog/?p=764
- http://www.bloom.it/2013/05/fiducia-storia-di-una-parola/?p=1634
- Antrocom. 2011. Fiducia, credibilità e reputazione... e l’antropologia? http://www.veneto.antrocom.org/blog/?p=764
- Mancini, R. 1995. L’ascolto come radice. Teoria dialogica della verità. Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane
- FAO. 2013. La Facilitation pour la gouvernance territoriale http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/mi008f/mi008f.pdf
- These are taken from the ongoing work in Abyei Administrative Area, South-Sudan
- Pierrette Desrosiers Psycoaching: http://www.pierrettedesrosiers.com/boite-a-outils-14-etes-vous-credible/
References
Antrocom. 2011. Fiducia, credibilità e reputazione... e l’antropologia? http://www.veneto.antrocom.org/blog/?p=764
Axelrod, R. 1984. “The evolution of cooperation”, New York, Basic Book
Brück, T., Justino, P., Verwimp, P., Avdeenko, A. and Tedesco, A. 2015. Measuring Violent Conflict in Micro-level Surveys: Current Practices and Methodological Challenges. Oxford University Press
FAO. 2016.a. Green Negotiated Territorial Development (GreeNTD)
FAO. 2016.b. Land and people in protracted crisis. Building stability on the land
FAO. 2013. La Facilitation pour la Gouvernance Territoriale
FAO. 2002. Global Agro-Ecological Zoning (GAEZ)
Fondation pour le Progrès de l’Homme (FPH). 1996. Ebauche pour la construction d’un art de la paix.
Gili, G. 2005. La credibilità. Rubbettino Editore
Leone, S. 2012. La relazione speculare tra identità e alterità: dialogo e riconoscimento tra riflessi e ombre. Rivista internazionale di filosofia online, vol. VII, n. 14 http://www.metabasis.it/articoli/14/14_Leone.pdf
Luhmann, N. 2002. La fiducia, Il Mulino Editore
Mancini, R. 1995. L’ascolto come radice. Teoria dialogica della verità. Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane
Owen, J. Essere influenti. L’arte di rendere le cose possibili. Franco Angeli Editore
Razafindrabe, M. 1998. Les aspects humains de la gestion des ressources naturelles à Madagascar. Bulletin de liaison du LJAP, 23 Juillet : 69-78
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento