„Entwicklung im Konflikt – (un)möglich? Das EU-Friedenslabor im Magdalena Medio, Kolumbien“

Development is not possible in conflict. This is often assumed in the academic literature and in the practice of development cooperation. The underlying assumption that development can only occur once peace has been established is often seen as a “sine qua non†condition. The present work questions this assumption; it examines whether development in a conflict environment is possible and what elements are needed to achieve it. To this end, the peace laboratory in Colombia´s Magdalena Medio region was studied and the “Ciudadela Educativa†was analysed in more detail. This research is empirically based on an analysis of primary and secondary literature, as well as several interviews held in Colombia. This paper takes the analysis of the perception of development in the theoretical discourse as a starting point. The author has found that the prevalent understanding of development in the literature does not necessarily coincide with the understanding of the concept by those involved in the peace laboratory. They tend to use a broader definition consisting of “waking up and taking action†which can be understood as a process of social change and transformation. Based on the guiding idea that “we do not need to wait until the peace arrives to start developing our region†a school was built in the middle of a conflict territory. This “first development then peace†-approach contradicts previous practice of development cooperation, in which development can only take place once there is peace. A “grassroots-level†leadership familiar with the specific regional and local situation that included progressive elements was essential for the success of the project. It was the decision making authority and managed the project throughout all its phases. The “bottom-up†-approach, whereby development has to be wanted and supported by local actors, proved to be crucial especially in the initial phase. Local actors do, however, depend on external assistance. The associated partners on the “toplevel†(in this case the EU and the Colombian government) perform two important tasks: They guarantee the financing of the project and serve as a protective shield against the armed groups. Both guerilla and paramilitaries showed respect for the international presence. An alliance with such powerful partners holds the risk of a dominant influence and the establishment of a “top-down†-approach: If the actors at the “top-level†pursue only their own agenda and interests and disempower the project management at the local level, then success and sustainability are at risk. To summarise, it can be argued that in the case of “Ciudadela Educativa†two factors were crucial for successful development: 1. A clear and lasting commitment and coherence in the community; 2. The alliance with influential and powerful partners who serve as financiers and provide a protective shield against the parties in conflict, while keeping the project management and ownership solidly within the “grassroots-level†.