In the post-Cold War period, the nature of conflicts has changed, with conflict moving closer to civilians as combatants, victims or (perceived) supporters of one or the other faction. International development and humanitarian NGOs that seek to address the needs of civilians have become operational in more war zones than ever before and, while conflict has always been a pervasive feature of their work in many areas of the world, they have become more aware of the inevitable two-way relationship between conflict and their programmes, staff and partners. Some have developed policies and operational guidelines to support the development of conflict-sensitive programmes. But less attention has so far been paid to building institutional capacity to apply these policies and tools, despite the significant impact of broader organisational development on the ability of INGOs to mainstream conflict sensitivity. The paper focuses on organisational issues rather than wider strategic concerns or the challenges of the external environment in which agencies operate, notably the ‘War on Terror’.
Mainstreaming conflict sensitivity is a strategic choice that influences – and is influenced by – the organisation’s norms, power structures and practice. The key to successful mainstreaming is establishing a close link between the organisation’s mandate and conflict sensitivity, whether the focus is on peacebuilding or integrated programming.
1. Conflict Sensitivity Defined
Conflict-Sensitive Approaches to Development, Humanitarian Assistance and Peacebuilding – A Resource Pack, 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 and the intervention.
INGO staff interviewed for this paper saw ‘sensitivity to conflict’ as being primarily about:
- The quality of policy and context analysis, including conflict analysis and analysis with partners;
- Mechanisms for applying this analysis; and
- Mechanisms for learning across programmes and across organisations.
The terminology of working ‘in’, ‘on’ or ‘around’ conflict is not used in this paper, despite its contribution to putting conflict and peace issues on the agenda of development actors, because it risks blurring the connections between different programmes and does not highlight the need for all activities in, on or around a conflict-affected area to be conflict-sensitive. A poorly planned reconciliation project can end up exacerbating conflict and a conflict-sensitive development project may in some cases contribute more to addressing conflict than a dialogue or reconciliation project. Perceiving ‘peacebuilding’ as something distinct from development work is unhelpful, because it overlooks the important contribution that development activities can make to supporting sustainable peace.
Conflict sensitivity has implications for agencies’ analysis, programming and advocacy. Agencies should carry out on-going, in-depth analysis of the conflict environment, based on the perspectives of communities themselves, and use this analysis to inform every step of the programme cycle: planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Conflict analysis should also form the basis for advocacy to influence the policy parameters of international interventions and for guidance tools to inform decisions regarding the impact of advocacy on field access and security.
2. Organisational Development Theory
Learning from the mainstreaming of other issues, such as gender, indicates that organisational development for conflict sensitivity requires more than just developing appropriate policies and tools. Wider organisational capacity building to integrate conflict sensitivity at all levels of the organisation and across all programmes is necessary. This requires clarity on the goal and the practical instruments needed to achieve it. In particular, it is necessary to tackle five key components of the mainstreaming process: commitment and motivation, organisational culture, capacity building, accountability and the external environment. Political commitment and motivation, including financial support, can contribute to strengthening a conflict-sensitive organisational culture. However, NGO organisational culture, coupled with external barriers such as funding environment and donor emphasis on implementation over reflection, is seen by some observers as creating weak incentives and rewards for learning. Capacity-building measures in the form of training, methodology development etc. need to go hand in hand with appropriate systems of accountability that give space for learning as well as opportunities to apply it. In addition to internal organisational changes, conflict sensitivity needs to be mainstreamed across other actors in the agency’s external environment, including donors and partners, both of who have significant impact on the conflict sensitivity of the wider response. Without this, the impact of the efforts of individual organisations is likely to be limited.
3. Experiences and Learning
3.1 Commitment and Motivation
Agencies’ motivation for conducting reviews of their work in conflict areas has both internal and external drivers. Drivers internal to the organisation include: experiences of staff on the ground who express a need for better policy and practical guidance; accountability and legitimacy concerns following specific crises (in particular Rwanda); and the increase in competition and specialisation amongst INGOs, which leads them to more explicitly articulate their mandates and expertise. External pressure from donor agencies that seek evidence of impact and effectiveness has also played a role, as has the changed ends and terms of an ongoing politicisation of aid, whereby donor governments seek to use aid to further foreign-policy goals in conflict-affected countries. The most important motivating factor is, however, the link between conflict sensitivity and agency mandate and values. Faith-based agencies’ emphasis on social justice and some secular agencies’ focus on rights provide a rationale for engaging with conflict issues. Agencies’ decisions on whether to engage in explicit peacebuilding activities should be informed by a judgement of how such activities fit their identity and aims, whether their involvement would be seen as legitimate, if they have the necessary skills and how such an involvement would impact on other work. While there is a need for senior management to ultimately buy into the mainstreaming process, it is important to engage staff on all organisational levels. This process may be particularly challenging in decentralised agencies, where there is an increased need for good cross-agency communication and strong, clear policy frameworks.
3.2 Organisational Culture(s)
An organisation’s strategic approach and responsiveness to change is influenced by its culture. Many agencies experience staff resistance to mainstreaming conflict sensitivity on top of other issues that have yet to be fully integrated, and so it is important to link cross-cutting issues closely and avoid overburdening staff. As far as possible, conflict sensitivity should therefore be integrated into existing procedures and structures. The NGO sector as a whole, however, struggles with a host of disincentives to learning that hamper this integration. Some INGOs are characterised by organisational cultures that view learning as a distraction and lack the means to analyse and make sense of large amounts of information. New technology does not necessarily solve this problem, but innovative solutions to enable learning in highly fluid contexts can be found, as evidenced by some agencies’ efforts to strengthen cross-organisational and cross-regional learning. While external consultants can play an important role as facilitators of change and in providing specialist support, their input is not always adapted to the purpose and it can be easier to discredit their proposals as ‘outsiders’. Agencies will therefore need to develop some capacity internally.
3.3 CapacityBuildingand Accountability
Individual skills and knowledge are central to achieving positive impact, including in conflict-affected areas, where social skills will be as important as technical ability, if not more so. Conflict-sensitive skills need to be included in staff training and incorporated into recruitment processes. While it will always be necessary to prioritise among different skills and types of experience, some central conflict-sensitive skills include understanding of the particular geographical area, knowledge of the relevant language(s), relationship-building and analytical skills, and the ability to deal with high stress levels. Despite recognition of the importance of contextual knowledge, few agencies interviewed include conflict- and peace-related skills in staff appraisals or reward staff for conflict-sensitive programming. Building the necessary capacity remains a problem that is exacerbated by high staff turnover and emphasis on implementation over analysis and planning. Many agencies do not consistently offer conflict-related training to either staff or partners. Though training is a lowcost mainstreaming instrument financially and poses few challenges to existing power dynamics, maximising its impact requires linking it to a wider package of measures, including structural change.
In terms of mainstreaming strategy, INGOs need to weigh the benefits and costs of establishing separate peacebuilding units versus integrating it on all levels. There is currently a worrying tendency of agencies with little or no prior experience of peacebuilding to establish separate peacebuilding programmes rather than mainstream conflict sensitivity, without reference to their development and humanitarian programming experience. This despite growing recognition that peacebuilding combined with socio-economic progress is often more effective. While establishing a central peacebuilding unit provides a clear focal point and signals commitment and priority, it risks becoming marginalised and needs to be well connected to the rest of the organisation and combined with other mechanisms for exchange and learning.
3.4 External Relationships
In addition to building internal organisational capacity, successful mainstreaming of conflict sensitivity demands conducive relationships with groups and actors that influence the conflict sensitivity of the wider response. This includes local partner organisations, donors, other INGOs, and national and international constituencies supporting the organisation. Conflict sensitivity is as much a question of inter-organisational capacity building and coordination as it is one of internal organisational development, and agencies should carry out joint analysis with other actors operating in the same or adjacent area.
Buy-in, participation and capacity of communities with whom agencies work are also of paramount importance. Conflict sensitivity requires an emphasis in partnership relations on long-term engagement and capacity building, rather than donor reporting and service delivery. While participatory approaches are already a feature of ‘good development practice’ in theory, achieving it on the ground is a more complex process. Heightened awareness of partners’ local legitimacy and their positions in power structures and dynamics is important to avoid inadvertently supporting elements of society not committed to peaceful change. Participatory planning processes can also be used as a means of preventing conflict by enabling inter-community dialogue.
Finally, the ability of agencies to mainstream conflict sensitivity is influenced by their relationship with donors, as well as by the broader policy environment. More flexible funding modalities that enable mid-project changes and more emphasis on process and impact are necessary to enable conflict sensitivity. Donors should themselves mainstream conflict sensitivity and work in a supportive manner with implementing agencies to promote institutional capacity building. INGOs in turn have an opportunity to seek to influence donor policies and to advocate for donor policy instruments to be sensitive to conflict.
4. Conclusion
Conflict sensitivity is as much a question of strengthened relationships between different actors operating in the same country as it is one of organisational capacity building. A recent study of peacebuilding projects of four European governments used the term ‘peacebuilding palette’ to describe the inter-linked areas that need to be addressed, from security to socio-economic development, a sound political framework, and justice and reconciliation mechanisms. Conflict sensitivity can strengthen development and humanitarian INGOs’ contribution to longer-term peace, but cannot replace coherent and concerted engagement by other actors within this larger picture. Key considerations that should inform the mainstreaming of conflict sensitivity include the following:
- Peacebuilding should be treated as a cross-cutting issue. International Alert’s experience indicates that integrating peacebuilding principles and processes into the planning and implementation of development and humanitarian programmes can be more effective than treating peacebuilding as a technical activity. Furthermore, peacebuilding activities are not guaranteed to be conflict-sensitive simply because they are termed ‘peacebuilding’, unless they are planned, implemented, monitored and evaluated with their intended and unintended impacts on conflict dynamics in mind.
- Developing good, flexible indicators for assessing impact on conflict, which is a challenge faced by all agencies, would enable organisations to demonstrate the usefulness of conflict sensitivity to internal and external stakeholders. Part of the problem with assessing impact is a lack of clear strategic objectives combined with the difficulty of measuring and isolating process and impact in different contexts. Some argue that attention should be redirected to assessing impact at the strategic level. This, however, should not entirely replace project-level assessment that takes into account unintended consequences and social/political impacts and emphasises downward accountability and learning.
- If donors are serious about strengthening the conflict-sensitive capacity of INGOs, they need to be more willing to invest in organisational development. The goal, however, should be to build development and humanitarian INGOs’ capacity to do what they do in a conflict-sensitive manner, not to turn them into specialist peacebuilding agencies.
- Conflict-sensitive development and humanitarian programmes cannot in themselves lead to sustainable peace, but need to be linked to the wider efforts of other actors. Development and humanitarian INGOs need to work closer with research, advocacy and human-rights NGOs who can offer alternative perspectives on the wider context.
- Addressing the built-in constraints to learning in the NGO sector is not the sole responsibility of agencies themselves, but involves amongst other things reforming the funding environment. However, agencies can seek innovative ways to promote learning, such as setting up mentoring schemes and making use of simulation exercises, as well as establishing forums for cross-regional learning and databases of evaluation and lessons-learned reports.
