This article was authorized
to be uploaded to my blog by
Beatrix Austin
Senior Coordinator
Berghof
Foundation
Berghof
Foundation Operations GmbH
Executive Directors: Professor Dr Hans-Joachim Giessmann & Sandra Pfahler
Chair of the Board of Trustees: Johannes Zundel
Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 95319 B
Germany
THE UTILITY AND DILEMMA
OF CONFLICT SENSITIVITY
Adam
Barbolet, Rachel Goldwyn, Hesta Groenewald and Andrew Sheriff
1. Introduction 2
2. Conflict sensitivity and PCIA – on the importance of process and the power of terminology 2
3. New directions in conflict sensitivity 5
3.1 Mainstreaming conflict sensitivity 5
3.2 Conflict-sensitive business practice 7
4. Our experience in Sri Lanka – a case study 8
4.1 Insights and Learning from Sri Lanka 8
4.2 Key outcomes of the work in Sri Lanka 9
5. The future of conflict sensitivity 10
5.1 Coherence with macro peace strategies and cooperation with other actors 10
5.2 Post-conflict reconstruction and peacebuilding 12
6. Conclusion 14
7. References and Further Reading 15
http://www.berghof-handbook.net
* This article was
partially influenced by the experience the authors have had with ‘conflict
sensitivity’ and PCIA during a six-organisation project (see Box I)
funded by the International Development Research Centre, Royal Netherlands
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Swedish International
Development Agency and GTZ. It has also been influenced by experience that the
authors had prior and subsequent to this project, and while
working with and for other organisations. It should not be taken as necessarily
representing the views of International Alert, Saferworld or
the wider consortium of agencies involved with the project. The authors would
like to thank Maria Lange, Jock Baker and Leslie Mohr for their constructive
feedback on drafts of this piece.
1.
Introduction
We would like to preface our article with a few words on how we understand conflict sensitivity. Essentially, this concept is
about much more than tools – hence our reluctance to
feature tools or extracts from tools in the
following. We recognise that tools and methodologies are
a very important tangible way in which one can
make conflict sensitivity concrete, but when
conflict sensitivity (or PCIA) is reduced to tools
only, it is of very limited utility. Undue
emphasis on complex tools, tables and methodologies
seems to be a primarily Western approach that
often has a limited resonance with many Southern organisations. Thus, a more encompassing approach is needed – and is slowly being adopted in practice by agencies. We wanted
to illustrate that conflict sensitivity could
best be achieved with a ‘tools plus’-based
approach, and that the principles of conflict
sensitivity could be applied to a wider cross-section of
activities than to those strictly in the humanitarian
and development sphere.
2. Conflict sensitivity
and PCIA
– on the importance of process and the power
of terminology
When asked what is needed to make their
organisations conflict-sensitive, Kenyan and Ugandan participants in a workshop
in Entebbe, 2003, described a vast array of actions –awareness raising;
promoting leadership by example; effective networking and communications;
including conflict sensitivity in the mandate,vision and mission of their
organisations; creating structures to enable decision making. These are all
important contributions to building the vision of ‘conflict sensitivity’ as an
approach that reaches much beyond the application of tools.
The phrase ‘conflict-sensitive’ or ‘conflict
sensitivity’ has been at the margins of development practice since at least 1999. The idea of
conflict sensitivity owes a great deal to diverse literature and thinking on Peace
and Conflict Impact Assessment (PCIA), though PCIA is not the only intellectual
and, importantly, experiential source that has influenced the development of
‘conflict-sensitive approaches’ (CSA). Mary Anderson’s ‘Do No Harm’ work; the
macro conflict assessment work undertaken by DFID, USAID, the World
Bank and other donors; the writings of Jonathan Goodhand; and over thirty years
of peace and development academic discourse have also provided significant
insight.
Depending on the view or definition of PCIA and CSA to
which one subscribes, it is possible to
see PCIA as either a method to achieve ‘conflict sensitivity’, or alternatively
to see ‘conflict sensitivity’ as an aspect of PCIA. Clearly, all users and
promoters of the various concepts and terminology have their own opinions.
We use the concept of conflict sensitivity as
developed in Conflict-sensitive
approaches to development, humanitarian assistance and peacebuilding: A
Resource Pack (2004, henceforth ‘Resource Pack’). This specific understanding of the concept was
developed through consultations with hundreds of individuals and agencies over
a two-year period. In Kenya
and Uganda Bosnia
The term ‘PCIA’ is understood differently by members
of the comparatively small group of people who use the terminology within the
field of development and conflict (Hoffman
2003). Some see PCIA as “a means of anticipating and evaluating the impacts
of development projects on both the structures and processes that promote peace
and those that increase the prospects of violence” (Church and
Shouldice 2002, 43). Others see it
as a process of mutual learning that should be led by people from conflict
zones, not aid agencies (Bush 2003b).
Yet others see that the application of PCIA is primarily at the project and
programme level, as opposed to more macro conflict assessments (Smith 2004, 45).
Box I – Project on ‘Conflict-sensitive approaches to development, humanitarian assistance and peacebuilding’ The two-year project, undertaken by a consortium of six Southern and Northern NGOs, drew together learning on good practice. The project built upon an
extensive consultation process in Kenya , Uganda
Through creating bridges between North and South, the project has ensured that Southern agencies have themselves shaped the international conflict
sensitivity agenda. The project was implemented by Africa Peace Forum (Kenya Uganda Sri Lanka UK UK UK
It was through the experience of implementing this project that the
authors became increasingly aware of the utility
of ‘conflict sensitivity’, although the
catalysts promoting its utility were multiple (De La Haye and Moyroud 2003,
1-2). The Resource Pack and more information about the project can be
found on: www.conflictsensitivity.org
Box II – Defining conflict sensitivity. The Resource Pack (2004) defines conflict
sensitivity as the capacity of an organisation to:
- Understand the (conflict) context in which it operates
- Understand the interaction between its operations and the (conflict) context; and
- Act upon the understanding of this interaction in order to avoid negative impacts and maximise positive impacts on the (conflict) context
Box III – Different understandings,
different analysis. Different understandings of key terms
lead to very real problems in analysis. For example, if one were to ask the question
“Has the United Kingdom
A number of tools have been developed during recent
years, many of which are utilised by organisations (see for example those profiled in Chapter 2 of the Resource Pack).
Indeed, from experts through practitioners the last few years have seen
significant steps forward in not only the development of operational guidance
(see for example Bush 2003a), but also the actual use of it.
Many have also begun to refine these tools, or to
question some of the assumptions underpinning them (Buckley-Zistel 2003). There is no doubt that some tools are more
appropriate than others for particular tasks, and there is still a need to look
at the theoretical assumptions on which they are based. Despite the fact that
there is more utilisation than in the past, most humanitarian and development
organisations in most settings still do not use any specific conflict-related
tools. This is perhaps not surprising, as ‘tools’ to promote gender sensitivity
or even the adoption of ‘rightsbased approaches’ are still not widely utilised, even in
organisations that have supposedly made an institutional commitment to their
mainstreaming. For a tool to be effective, it has to be placed firmly within
the wider context, both the particular geographical context as well as the
institutional context.
However tools are only one dimension of conflict
sensitivity – applied on their own they will have little impact on better
practice.
Despite the assertions by some prominent proponents of
PCIA to the contrary, the term PCIA itself quickly leads to those unfamiliar
with it thinking that it is merely a ‘tool’ or set of ‘tools’ (Shannon 2003/04). We acknowledge that
the joint CSA project contributed to the perception of PCIA as a ‘tool’ by its
initial subtitle of ‘Tools for Peace and Conflict Impact Assessment’. Clarity
over this matter really began to take hold during the implementation of the
project. However, a tools-based approach has severe limitations, as is
recognised in the literature (in
particular works of Kenneth Bush, Manuela Leonhardt and Maria Lange). More
importantly, the spirit and approach with which any tools are utilized determine their impact. The
same tools can be used to promote learning and empowerment as well as in ways
that control, distort and exclude. Walking this line is challenging, and we
willingly admit that we have not always achieved balance in our own
experiences.
In
many circumstances, tools can be an important component of any approach to
promote and enable reflection, learning and better practice. However,
operational guidance for conflict sensitivity should not come in the form of a
‘correct’ one-size-fits-all ‘tool’, but rather as a menu of options and
guidance which can be adapted, localised, and developed as the context and
purpose demands. In our experience, the terms and concepts of ‘conflict
sensitivity’ and ‘conflict-sensitive approaches’ are less likely to be interpreted or understood as only a
tool or set of tools. The word ‘approach’ indicates something broader: an
entire ethos as to how organisations could strategise, plan, implement and
evaluate their work.
Box IV – Community empowerment. When understood as a tool, PCIAs can be
participatory and empowering, depending on whether the process engages
communities or is conducted in isolation by programme staff.
In her Berghof article, Toward a Unified Methodology: Reframing
PCIA, Manuela Leonhardt (2003)
makes the point that, “PCIA could be empowering if it offers people living in
conflict with the chance to voice their concerns on the conflict impact of
certain development plans and jointly develop alternatives.” The point here,
which applies equally to conflict sensitivity, is that process needs to be
paramount; people affected by violent conflict must be active participants in solutions to violent
conflict. And it is no coincidence that their involvement in the resolution of
their conflicts is an empowering experience.
Non-combative community members living in
areas of violent conflict often see themselves as innocent victims of a
political conflict operating at a national level. Their only relationship with
this national conflict, as they understand it, is when it arbitrarily reaches into
their community and visits untold hardship on self and loved ones. A
conflict-sensitive approach must engage project participants or beneficiaries –
at a minimum in the analysis and implementation phases – to ensure the
intervention considers and addresses conflict in all its nuances and
intricacies. Through so doing, community members begin to understand that their own actions towards people
from other ethnic, religious, social, economic, cultural or linguistic
communities have a direct bearing on what they formerly understood as a disconnected
macro political issue.
Typically they react in two ways to this
new understanding. First, with dismay at their own role in perpetuating
violence through inadvertently supporting the structures of violence.
Second, with excitement and empowerment
as they understand that changing their own behaviour, and encouraging their
friends and neighbours to do the same, will support peace and undermine
violence. So the overall objective of conflict sensitivity is not empowerment, but
empowerment can be an important and rewarding by-product of a
conflict-sensitive approach.
3. New directions in conflict sensitivity
The thinking underpinning
conflict-sensitive approaches is evolving and expanding,being applied to new
areas and sectors. This section describes new ideas in mainstreaming conflict sensitivity
and the developing application of conflict sensitivity to peacebuilding actors
and the private sector.
3.1 Mainstreaming conflict sensitivity
3.1.1 Agency level
Transforming
the behaviour of organisations working in conflict areas requires something
more fundamental and encompassing than even the best adapted tool can deliver.
Research indicates that
the positive impact of conflict sensitivity is limited if it is confined to
technical activity, ratherthan understood as strategic and relevant to an
entire organisation and its partners (Lange 2004).
The development sector is suffering from
initiative overload, having had the mainstreaming of environment, gender and
rights-based approaches on the agenda over the past few years. Many people let
out a collective groan at the idea of yet another ‘mainstreaming’ initiative.
The legacy of past ‘mainstreaming’ that has been limited to top-down roll-outs
is keenly felt, as are concerns that
conflict sensitivity may politicise
organisations, undermining their core mandates.
The six-agency conflict sensitivity
project sought to find new ways to support
mainstreaming and institutional learning
on conflict sensitivity beyond what is often the default action of training. It
proposed integrating the appropriate attitudes, approaches, tools and expertise
into the organisation’s culture, systems, processes and work, such that
conflict sensitivity is applied not just to isolated projects but becomes an
entire organisational ethos. In the Resource Pack (Chapter 5, Annex 1) a
framework was developed to invite reflection on possible leverage points to
introduce and strengthen capacity internally and externally – this has been
much developed in Lange’s work (2004). The five pillars of this framework are:
- Institutional commitment
- Willingness to make changes in organisational culture and institutional structures
- Support for capacity development
- Conducive external relationships
- Accountability mechanisms
Building capacity in conflict sensitivity
requires strength in all five pillars. The failure of an organisation to form
connections between the pillars will result in islands of conflict sensitivity
within a sea of conflict-blind institutional practice. However, an incremental
approach to mainstreaming may be all that most large operational organisations
can cope with.
3.1.2 International Organisations
International players, particularly
bi-lateral and multi-lateral agencies, need to recognisetheir role in
conflict-sensitive or conflict-blind practice. The strategies of donors and
other in country representatives of international agencies are influenced by
policies and approaches taken by the agencies’ headquarters. The approach a
World Bank office takes in any given country is heavily influenced by the
policies and procedures – including reporting requirements – determined in Washington
3.1.3 Governments
With a few notable exceptions, the debate
and implementation experience around conflict sensitivity and PCIA has
predominately been focused on international agencies and national civil
society. Some of the exceptions are the United Nations Department of Economic
and Social Affairs (UNDESA) project on ‘Building African Capacity in Conflict
Management’ and some of the CSA joint project work with government officials in
Kenya , Uganda and, to a lesser extent, Sri Lanka
stakeholders in the application of
conflict sensitivity. Engaging politicians, government departments and public
officials in conflict sensitivity is therefore extremely important despite the
inherent risks and moral
challenges. A sense of realism and clear ethical guidance must always be
maintained in dealing with any parties to a conflict and/or powerful actors
within it.
Box V – Ethical guidance in conflict
transformation. In response to both good and bad
experiences in its peacebuilding work, International Alert developed a code of
conduct to guide its actions (International
Alert 1998). The code of conduct provides an ethical framework for conflict
transformation work, and consists of guiding principles for the organisation
and the development of policies on human rights, impartiality and working
partnerships.
There is undoubtedly concern amongst some agencies
about the value of putting limited resources into engaging the government
bureaucracy which is often so reform resistant. Our own experience shows that
framing discussion as conflict-sensitive development is one way in which
constructive engagement can be approached, whereas ‘conflict transformation’ or
‘promoting peace’ can be seen
as too esoteric or ‘political’.
Box VI – Conflict sensitivity training
with government officials in Kenya. Kenya
Their work potentially impacts hugely on
the conflict dynamics in the communities where they work, yet they are given no
training on conflict issues. It clearly emerged from these workshops how big
the need is for more skills and capacity on understanding conflict and
responses to conflict.
3.2 Conflict-sensitive business practice
The negative impact that the private
sector can have on conflict dynamics is well documented. However, if applied in
good faith, learning from conflict sensitivity and PCIA could assist the
private sector to make better informed choices about avoiding negative impacts
and enhancing possible positive impacts on violent conflict.
Drawing on the experience of the
development and humanitarian sectors in conflict sensitivity, International Alert has
developed ‘Conflict-Sensitive Business Practice: Guidance for Extractive
Industries’. This methodology provides a framework and tools to enable
companies to anticipate, monitor and assess business interactions with
conflict, and to design strategies to contribute to conflict prevention and
peacebuilding. The methodology is closely linked to the operational lifecycle
of oil, gas and mining ventures, from initial geological investigations,
through exploration and production, to closure and withdrawal.
Conflict-Sensitive Business Practice relates to all areas of business operation
and influence – core business, social investment, and policy dialogue – and seeks strategies that
not only aim to avoid contributing to conflict, but also to find practical and
legitimate steps to contribute to peace. The development of the methodology has
been guided by a multi-stakeholder steering group comprising industry,
government and civil society representatives, and has been discussed in detail
with civil society representation in Colombia
4. Our experience in Sri Lanka
Just because an activity
is labelled as peacebuilding does not automatically mean that it has a positive
impact on conflict. Much of the focus in the development of thinking and
practice has been aimed at the potential conflict insensitivity of humanitarian
and development action. However, activities that promote dialogue, peace
education, or reconciliation can also have negative impacts on conflict
dynamics. The Resource Pack project found that peacebuilding actors found this
a particularly difficult message to hear.
Likewise, just because
an activity is designed to promote conflict sensitivity, does not mean that it is
automatically conflict-sensitive in itself. A few examples are offered in the
following section, which traces briefly the six-organisation conflict
sensitivity project (described in Box I) as it was implemented in Sri Lanka
4.1 Insights and Learning from Sri Lanka
Interviews, workshops and training events
convened across Sri Lanka
from 2002 to 2003 formed a major plank in the learning on practice and
challenges in conflict sensitivity for the sixorganisation project, alongside
similar work in Kenya and Uganda , and other experiences in Nepal , Guatemala
The Sri Lankan experience involved the
government of Sri Lanka
As anticipated, the project team quickly
discovered that conflict sensitivity is not new to Sri
Lanka – many organisations were conflict aware,
incorporating some form of conflict sensitivity within the framework of their
interventions, although this was often ad hoc, intuitive and geographically
uneven in application (particularly apparent was the gap between Colombo Colombo Colombo ) and DFID were on the leading edge in
the application of conflict sensitivity in Sri Lanka Sri
Lanka
2 The full set of documents
comprising the Conflict-Sensitive Business Practice methodology is available on
www.international-alert.org.
Not all implementation of the project in Sri Lanka
More importantly, a dedicated conflict
analysis was not undertaken at the start of the project, and the international
partners were thus obliged to rely too heavily on the local partner for
detailed context knowledge. As the project team came to recognise this crucial
gap, a more methodical approach was taken, thus the emergent framework of
linking conflict analysis to project planning and implementation was piloted in
the ongoing Sri Lankan work. The project team recognised that there is a key
need to demonstrate a willingness to learn in promoting conflict sensitivity.
4.2 Key outcomes of the work in Sri Lanka
The mapping process engaged numerous
indigenous and international organisations, drawing the learning from the
grassroots into the Resource Pack, and simultaneously helping to progress their
understanding of conflict sensitivity. The concepts and terms of conflict
sensitivity have been adopted widely in Sri Lanka
It is impossible to capture here the
wealth of conceptual development that was drawn from the organisations and
individuals engaged in the Resource Pack project. Nevertheless two concepts warrant particular
attention: linking conflict analyses with needs assessments, and developing indicators
for conflict-sensitive monitoring and evaluation.
4.2.1 Linking conflict analysis with needs
assessment
The foundation of conflict-sensitive
practice is a thorough and regularly updated conflict analysis; it is the base rock to
which all project planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation should be
linked. These linkages had previously not been clearly articulated and the work
in Sri Lanka
Other organisations, such as AHIMSA and
Helvetas use an integrated process. Helvetas incorporates components of
conflict analysis tools into their PRA process, supplementing the individual
perspective of the needs assessment with an analysis of the interests and
strategies of conflict actors. For instance, a PRA revealed some unusually
distant relations between sections of a community. Incorporating elements of
the Attitudes, Behaviours and Context Triangle (Responding to Conflict 2000) enabled an understanding of why these
relationships were distant. Another organisation, AHAM (a Sri Lankan NGO consortium, based in Trincomalee), uses a
conflict analysis as a statement of need, such that the conflict analysis
itself defines the intervention without an additional needs assessment process.
In a process facilitated by AHAM staff, representatives of the conflicting
parties undertake a shared analysis and propose project interventions, which
they then explain and discuss with their constituent communities.
4.2.2 Developing indicators for
conflict-sensitive monitoring and evaluation
The development of indicators to measure
the interaction between a project and its (conflict) context was of
considerable interest to many Sri Lankan-based organisations. The Resource Pack
promotes the use of perception-based indicators in addition to objective
indicators to capture the more intangible impacts of programming, for example
whether a respondent feels more or less safe (perception-based indicator)
compared to the recorded number of incidents of violence (objective indicator).
This approach drew on Oxfam Sri Lanka’s ground-breaking work in devising indicators
to evaluate their peacebuilding work. Oxfam’s relationship building programme,
which seeks to build relationships across communities divided by the conflict,
involves inter-community exchange activities. A series of innovative indicators
were developed by the beneficiaries and crosschecked by Oxfam, including:
The existence of communications taking
place above and beyond those organised by the project (including inter-group
marriages)
- The form of visiting during organised encounters (Do people behave as relatives or strangers? What kinds of gifts do they bring?)
- Actions of those not directly involved in the organised encounters (for example, a Buddhist Monk who was not directly involved in the programme activities allowing announcements to be made in Tamil from the Buddhist Temple, when the Tamil language is not normally used by Buddhists).
These insights only scratch the surface of
extensive and high calibre indigenous practices of conflict sensitivity, not
only from Sri Lanka but also
Kenya , Uganda
5. The future of
conflict sensitivity
There are a number of new sectors and
areas to which the concepts and ideas underpinning conflict sensitivity could
usefully be applied, as well as suggestions for the evolution of the concept.
5.1 Coherence with macro peace strategies
and cooperation with other actors
As with PCIAs, conflict sensitivity is
rooted in the belief that by improving the ability of development projects to
avoid negative and maximise positive impacts, appropriately designed and implemented
projects will contribute to sustainable peace (Bush 1998, 7; Gaigals with
Leonhardt 2001, 23). However, because it remains extremely difficult to
determine impact in peacebuilding, it cannot be said with any sort of
confidence that a conflict-sensitive project will, a priori, contribute to the consolidation of
peace. In other words, the maturation of conflict sensitivity requires an examination
of the assumption that ‘avoiding harm’ and ‘doing some good’ necessarily builds
peace.
Two complementary avenues for such
maturation are explored here: linking up conflict-sensitive projects with a
broader peace strategy, and collaboration.
The Utstein Study of Peacebuilding
identifies what Dan Smith calls a “strategic deficit” in peacebuilding. The
majority of the peacebuilding projects analysed in the study did not have a clear
connection to a country or regional peace strategy, also a pervasive problem
for development and
humanitarian assistance (Smith 2004, 10). Just as better development practice
should link development and humanitarian assistance projects to a broader
country development strategy, projects should also be linked to a country-level
peace strategy. Building such links is fundamental to deconstructing the
assumption that conflict sensitivity will automatically contribute to peace.
As Anderson and Olson point out, “people will say, ‘I
have to assume that, over time, all of our different activities will add up.’
But the evidence shows that without explicit efforts to add it up, this does
not automatically or inevitably occur” (Anderson
and Olson 2003, 54). Linking conflictsensitive projects to a country-level
strategy would challenge practitioners to question assumptions, to understand
the role and activities of other actors, and to ensure some level of
collaboration and complementarity. More importantly, better understanding
country-level implications for community level projects would encourage practitioners to make the
connections between their work and the macro conflict context.
Another important aspect of the strategic deficit is
coordination both within agencies and with other complementary organisations.
As Smith argues, agencies working in a “beneficiary
country need all to be pulling in the same direction” (Smith 2004, 57). Calls for coordination amongst development,
humanitarian and peacebuilding agencies are not new, and continue to be
frustratingly evasive for a variety of reasons, including high staff workloads
and the perceptions and reality of inter-agency competition. As Thania
Paffenholz has said “everybody wants to coordinate, but nobody wants to be
coordinated!” (Paffenholz 2004, 163). Conflict sensitivity provides two
important mechanisms for coordination. First, joint conflict analyses – good
practice in conflict sensitivity – help agencies to see how they can complement
each other’s efforts and ensure that the collective whole is more than the sum
of its parts by providing a commonality of purpose.
As Jeroen de Zeeuw puts it, “The lack of international
consensus is […] linked to the absence of identified objectives and priorities
for peace-building” (De Zeeuw 2001, 16). Second, understanding a context from a
conflict-sensitive perspective helps agencies to understand that their own
positive contributions to mitigating violence can easily be frustrated by
carelessness from a conflictblind or conflict-insensitive organisation
operating in the same area. This realisation encourages organisations that wish
to be conflict-sensitive to strategically engage with organisations they
might otherwise choose not to engage
with.
Box VII – Cross-agency collaboration in
the Caucasus. In the three South Caucasian countries of
Azerbaijan , Georgia and Armenia
By bringing representatives from both
national and international NGOs together in joint workshops and training sessions, CRS has
successfully encouraged cross-agency collaboration within and across the
national and international divides. Agencies that have participated in the CRS
activities have shown a strong desire to work together on joint conflict
analyses and joint conflict-sensitive development projects. However, questions
still remain as to how this initiative is explicitly linked to addressing macro
conflict dynamics in the region.
Bringing a more strategic approach to conflict
sensitivity also opens a new opportunity for measuring impact. Because of the
existence of significant external factors, the peacebuilding field has
struggled with measuring project impact. Conflict sensitivity faces similar
problems with impact measurement, although there have been some recent advances
(as outlined in Section 4.2.2 above, and Resource Pack Chapter 3, Module 3).
Better understanding the interconnections between country-level macro conflicts and community-level projects provides another
opportunity for measuring impact, although significant and challenging
questions do remain regarding how to measure the interaction and ascribe
attribution.
New questions are also emerging. For
example, with regards to stakeholders, can linking interventions to a
country-level strategy and coordinating with other interventions produce a
whole that is greater than the sum of its parts? The application of conflict
sensitivity at the project level typically identifies stakeholders in
development, peacebuilding and humanitarian assistance projects as community
members (beneficiaries and their neighbours) and development actors (Community Based
Organisations, local and international NGOs, and donors). While these two
categorisations of stakeholders are important, it is generally prohibitively
difficult to determine how effecting positive change amongst them will support
the consolidation of peace at the macro political level.
In terms of engaging with stakeholders,
conflict sensitivity is quite clear about the need to work beyond one’s own
organisation, and even beyond partner organisations (Resource Pack, Chapter 4, 5). Bush (2003b) expresses concern that
PCIA was seized from the field by bilateral and multilateral donors. It is
therefore important that conflict sensitivity apply to – and be understood by – a wide range of stakeholders. For
reasons of practicality and efficiency, the application of conflict sensitivity
often leads organisations to work with other like-minded organisations and to
advocate for change amongst those most amenable to change. To ensure that
conflict-sensitive development, peacebuilding and humanitarian assistance
projects do in fact contribute to the consolidation of peace, more work is
required to effect change amongst agencies that are either uninterested or antagonistic
to engaging constructively in conflict transformation.
5.2
Post-conflict reconstruction and peacebuilding
As with the unproven assumption that
conflict-sensitive community-level projects will naturally contribute to peace,
there is also a prevalent assumption that post-conflict reconstruction is
inherently pro-peace. Some seem to think that there is no need to consider the
risk of violence in post-conflict reconstruction because the conflict has been
resolved (CSIS/ AUSA 2002, 2). Yet as
US President Harry S. Truman said, “the
absence of war is not peace”.
Two aspects of post-conflict reconstruction
illuminate the opportunity (and need) for the application of conflict
sensitivity: First, democratisation, and second, disarmament, demobilisation
and reintegration (DDR) of ex-combatants. Timing is critical for both, not only
to ensure they are understood as a long-term transition from emergency
assistance to development, but also that they correspond to local realities and
needs, rather than the political agendas of donor countries.
5.2.1 Democratisation
Many practitioners believe that democratisation
prima facie contributes to peace (De Zeeuw 2001, 19). However, as a recent SIDA publication
highlights, “democratisation in its first stages increases the likelihood of armed conflict”
(Söderberg and Ohlson 2003, 1; emphasis added).
Democratic governance, political party
development, citizen education and particularly elections all have the
potential to exacerbate societal tensions. The challenge is to support a
societal shift from negative peace to positive peace without inadvertently
increasing the likelihood of violent conflict.
Many post-conflict reconstruction
interventions focus on democratisation processes and, more problematically, on
the ‘trappings’ of democracy, the most celebrated of these being the multiparty
election. The logic appears to be that by holding elections early, democracy
will naturally follow. Or perhaps, more disingenuously, that the completion of
an election offers positive proof of the existence of democracy in a particular
country. In relation to the Palestinian elections, for example, UK
In reality, elections in weak or
conflict-affected countries
are unlikely to be successful and unlikely to support either peace or
democratisation processes. First, in even the most stable countries, elections are inherently about a struggle
for power. In unstable countries this struggle can be “highly destabilising”,
encourage “ethnification” and sometimes lead to “political violence or armed
conflict” (Söderberg and Ohlson 2003,
26). Second, elections in conflict-affected countries are “likely to lead
to sedimentation of the existing power structures through a ‘premature closure’
of the process of democratisation” (Söderberg and Ohlson 2003, 26).
We are not aware of any processes
undertaken to date that can be considered even an earnest attempt at
‘conflict-sensitive democratisation’. Nevertheless, a picture is beginning to emerge
of what such a process might look like. First, as indicated above, there is a
need to deemphasise democratic mechanisms and focus instead on the full breadth of
democratic culture that
includes the acceptance of norms such as transparency, accountability and
responsiveness of institutions to public interest. In some fragile states and
difficult partnerships we are now seeing a shift by the international community
from supporting governments to supporting governance. This is a welcome shift
because it recognizes that effective governance and democracy – particularly in
conflict-affected contexts – require a change in culture, and not just
improving or building new structures and processes.
So we can imagine that a
conflict-sensitive approach to democratisation would involve building on a
detailed understanding of existing indigenous governance norms and approaches to
ensure that new approaches and interventions actually serve to consolidate
peace, and do not entrench existing inequitable or unjust power structures.
Clearly much work remains to be done on this issue.
5.2.2 Demobilisation, disarmament and
reintegration (DDR)
Demobilising, disarming and reintegrating
combatants is crucial in any post-conflict environment. At their most basic,
DDR programmes attempt to remove arms from all but the regular armed forces
(i.e. military and police) and to reintegrate former combatants into society.
However, complex political and social contexts can undermine these
interventions, resulting in a failure to contribute to consolidated peace and
stability, or even in a recourse to arms. Evaluations of longterm impact seldom
highlight the levels of conflict sensitivity of such programmes.
A government-led DDR programme in Uganda
A failure to understand and respond to the
structural constraints in the socio-economic context meant the programme, at best,
did not fulfil its potential and, at worst, created a pool of demobilised
combatants without livelihoods in an unstable security environment.
Similarly, when designing a weapons
collection or small arms programme, insufficient attention is often paid to the
context; civilians and former combatants will only relinquish their arms if
their security situation improves and they trust the state security services to
protect them. In the Karamoja region of Uganda
The reasons include a general perception
among the population that the government would not be able to protect them, and
a situation where cattle rustling is key to economic survival. A conflict
sensitive disarmament programme should consider how to improve these
circumstances.
There are numerous other areas that might
also benefit from the application of a conflict sensitivity lens. More
importantly, however, is the understanding that the consolidation of peace at a
country-wide level requires a maturation of conflict sensitivity beyond a
project-focus to a countrywide application.
6. Conclusion
We believe that some of the most useful
conflict-sensitive approaches reflect the experience and findings of Southern
organisations working in conflict-affected countries. These organisations have
made a contribution to the implementation of better practice and to raising
awareness, learning and reflection amongst a diverse group of actors. Key
learning and trends have emerged from our experience with the implementation of
conflict-sensitive approaches. While many of these are not new, and others were
‘foretold’, we believe our experience with implementation – and the documentation
of others’ experiences in other organisations and regions – gives us particular
insight into conflict-sensitive approaches.
At the core of conflict sensitivity is an
investment in learning about the conflict context and a responsibility to act
upon that learning to make better-informed choices. These tasks seem
deceptively simple. They, however, require a great deal of commitment on the
part of any organisation. Tools help to ‘concretise’ the rather abstract
concept of conflict sensitivity. Yet as we have noted throughout this piece,
the reduction of PCIA or conflict sensitivity to a ‘tools only’ based
understanding will not achieve the ‘avoidance of negative impacts and the
enhancement of positive impacts’, nor will it empower in the way that some
would hope. A lack of clarity on ‘what is’ conflict sensitivity or PCIA is not
merely an academic issue, but one that inhibits its adoption and application.
Moreover, while operational guidance in the form of tools is an important
aspect of conflict sensitivity, true impact
requires a more fundamental and focused transformation of institutional
practices. This requires the ‘mainstreaming’ of conflict sensitivity within an
organisation.
Without mainstreaming, islands of better
practice will emerge that will have limited impact. This paper describes key
approaches to engage in conflict sensitivity mainstreaming, moving it from the conceptual
to the practical.
Mainstreaming is, however, a significant
task for any organisation and will necessarily be a long-term process.
Conflict sensitivity has a relevance and
importance to government, the private sector and peacebuilding actors, much
beyond only the traditional humanitarian and development sectors.
There is some emerging experience of
engaging government and the private sector, but it is early days. Conceptually
there is no reason why conflict sensitivity cannot be extended to new areas
such as macro post-conflict reconstruction and DDR. We, and those we were
working with, learnt the hard way that conflict sensitivity is
relevant to all programming, including programming aimed at promoting conflict
sensitivity. We know from experience that for conflict sensitivity to move beyond
rhetoric and concepts, changes in practice are required, not least by those
organisations and individuals championing it.
Our experience in Sri Lanka , Kenya
and Uganda
The adaptation of existing methods of
assessment and evaluation in the humanitarian and development sector to make
them more conflict-focussed is also being attempted, and again shows some
promise.
The development of impact monitoring and
evaluation remains an area of huge interest, but one in which there is the
least guidance in terms of theory or practice. New thinking on topics such as
‘interaction indicators’ shows promise worthy of application and subsequent
learning. More application and documentation of practice should be the focus
rather than conceptual tinkering, away from the realities of implementation.
The last five years have seen significant
advances in the application of conflict sensitivity,though application remains
weak in both breadth and depth across the myriad of actors and processes
connected with ‘development’ worldwide. Conflict sensitivity has not yet
reached the same level of recognition as have topics such as mainstreaming the
environment, gender or rights-based approaches. Nor has conflict sensitivity
yet become the catalyst for empowerment of communities that some analysts would
have hoped.
Despite the limits of the breadth and
depth of applications of conflict sensitivity, there are a number of new areas
and difficult questions it can help address. Conflict sensitivity and emerging
thinking such as ‘strategic peacebuilding’ complement each other, and as we
have indicated, may help address some of the issues concerning coordination of
agencies and the divide between micro-level interventions and macro-level impact.
As was often indicated by practitioners in Sri
Lanka , Kenya
and Uganda
7. References and
Further Reading
The Resource Pack 2004 – Africa Peace Forum, Center for Conflict
Resolution, Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies, Forum on Early Warning and
Early Response, International Alert and Saferworld 2004. Conflict-sensitive approaches to development,
humanitarian assistance and peacebuilding. A Resource Pack. London
Anderson, Mary B. and Olson, Lara 2003. Confronting War: Critical Lessons for
Peace Practitioners.Cambridge,
MA: Collaborative for Development Action.
Austin, Alexander, Martina Fischer and
Norbert Ropers (eds.) 2004. Transforming Ethnopolitical Conflict. The Berghof Handbook. Berlin :
Berghof Center
Buckley-Zistel, Susanne 2003. Development
assistance and conflict assessment methodology, in: Conflict, Security and Development, 3, 1, 119-127.
Bush, Kenneth 2003a. Hands-On PCIA: A Handbook for Peace And
Conflict Impact Assessment.
Bush, Kenneth 2003b. PCIA Five Years On: The
Commodification of an Idea, in: Alexander Austin, Martina Fischer and Oliver
Wils (eds.). Peace
and Conflict Impact Assessment. Critical Views on Theory and Practice. (Berghof Handbook Dialogue Series No. 1.) Berlin
Bush, Kenneth March 1998. Working Paper 1: A Measure of Peace: Peace and
Conflict Impact Assessment (PCIA) of Development Projects in Conflict Zones. Ottawa
Church, Cheyanne and Shouldice, Julie 2002. The Evaluation of Conflict Resolution Interventions:
Framing the State of Play Londonderry .
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
and the Association of the United
States
De
La Haye , Jos and
Moyroud, Celine 2003. Conceptual
background – The move away from PCIA…to Conflict Sensitivity, in: Conflict-Sensitive Approaches to Development, Humanitarian
Assistance and Peacebuilding, Newsletter, 1, 3, 1-2.
De Zeeuw, Jeroen 2001. Building peace in war-torn societies: from concept to
strategy. The Hague
Gaigals, Cynthia with Leonhardt, Manuela 2001. Conflict-Sensitive Approaches to Development:A Review
of Practice. London
Hoffman, Mark 2003. PCIA Methodology: Evolving Art
Form or Practical Dead End?, in: Alexander Austin, Martina Fischer and Oliver
Wils (eds.). Peace
and Conflict Impact Assessment.
Critical Views on Theory and Practice. (Berghof Handbook Dialogue Series No. 1.)Berlin : Berghof
Research Center
International Alert 1998. Code of Conduct for Conflict Transformation Work. London
Jones, George 13 November 2004. Bush pledge to Blair
on Middle East , in: The Daily Telegraph No. 46, 477.
Lange, Maria 2004. Building Institutional Capacity for Conflict-Sensitive
Practice: The Case of International NGOs. London
Leonhardt, Manuela 2003. Toward a Unified Methodology:
Reframing PCIA, in: Alexander Austin, Martina Fischer and Oliver Wils (eds.). Peace and Conflict Impact Assessment. Critical Views
on Theory and Practice. (Berghof
Handbook Dialogue Series No. 1.) Berlin : Berghof Research Center
Paffenholz, Thania and Luc Reychler 2004. Introducing the Peace and Conflict Assessment Model (PCA).
Version of the authors 30.6.2004,
available from: www.fielddiplomacy.be.
Paffenholz, Thania 2004. Designing Transformation and
Intervention Processes, in: Alexander Austin, Martina Fischer and Norbert
Ropers (eds.). Transforming
Ehnopolitical Conflict.
The Berghof Handbook. Berlin : Berghof
Research Center
Responding to Conflict 2000. Working with conflict: skills and strategies for
action. London
Saferworld and InterAfrica Group October 2000. Prevention of violent conflict and the coherence of EU
policies towards the Horn of Africa: A case study on the 1992-95 post-conflict
Demobilisation and Reintegration Programme in Uganda London
Shannon, Róisín 2003/04. Peacebuilding and conflict
resolution interventions in post-conflict Angola
Smith, Dan 2004. Towards a Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding:
Getting Their Act Together:Overview report of the Joint Utstein Study of
Peacebuilding. Evaluation
Report 1/2004.
filarkiv/210673/rapp104.pdf.
Söderberg, M. and T. Ohlson March 2003. Democratisation and Armed Conflict in Weak States.
World Bank 2004. Background for Agenda – Participation in the PRSP
Process: An NGO Roundtable, Thursday 4th November 2004, 11am-4pm. mimeo.
The Authors
Andrew Sherriff was previously the manager of the Development and
Peacebuilding Programme at International Alert where he worked on the African
Great Lakes, conflict sensitivity,and the European Union and conflict
prevention. He is now an independent consultant on peace, security and
development issues. E-mail: Andrew_sherriff@yahoo.com
Hesta Groenewald is Conflict Project Coordinator in the Africa
Programme at Saferworld and has worked on issues of conflict sensitivity, the
European Union and conflict prevention, security sector reform and
community-based policing in Africa and South Eastern
Europe .
Email: hesta@saferworld.org.uk
Rachel Goldwyn is the Conflict Programme and Policy Advisor for CARE
International UK Sri Lanka Burma
Adam Barbolet is a senior programme officer at International Alert
focussing on the conflict/ development nexus. Prior to joining Alert, he was
peacebuilding advisor for an international NGO in Kathmandu , Nepal
