What is conflict sensitivity? And what is not?
PCi defines conflict sensitivity in two ways.
Firstly, conflict sensitivity is a recognition that all aid activities interact with peace and conflict, in ways that are direct and indirect, predictable and unpredictable, and positive and negative.
Secondly, conflict sensitivity is an approach to delivering aid activities in a way that seeks to minimise the risk of contributing to conflict and maximises opportunities to contribute to sustainable peace.
There are a number of considerations that emerge from and help develop this definition.
Conflict sensitivity is not peacebuilding
Peacebuilding consists of activities which are expressly intended to reduce conflict or promote peace. While peacebuilding activities may encompass a wide range of types of aid, from economic development to humanitarian-type activities, these activities are distinct from other types of assistance in the primary intent of their design.
Conflict sensitivity does not require other aid activities to adopt peace as their primary goal. Rather it asks practitioners to look to see how activities can be optimised to meet a responsibility to minimise harms and, where possible, to contribute to peace. Thinking this through may bring aid practitioners closer to thinking about what peace might look like in the contexts in which they work, but does not require them to make this their main focus.
Conflict sensitivity is not about avoiding conflict
The most common translation of ‘conflict sensitivity’ into Arabic is ‘hasasiyat an-nizaa’ which literally translates ‘sensitivity’ with the meaning of ‘allergy’ (to conflict). In our experience in Libya, many Arabic speaking partners and colleagues interpret this to mean that conflict sensitivity aims for aid to be delivered while avoiding conflict and avoiding upsetting people. This seems desirable, except that it can lead to a sense that aid should be delivered in a way that does not ruffle feathers, including those of powerful conflict actors, thereby entrenching the inequalities or injustices that contribute to conflict. A 2024 study in Cambodia also found that similar misunderstandings of conflict sensitivity had resulted in conflict avoidance and stopped civil society advocating towards government on critical issues for fear of creating conflict.
An alternative translation into Arabic is ‘mara’at haalat an-nizaa’, which literally means ‘consideration of the situation of conflict’. This gets closer to how we think of conflict sensitivity at PCi: that aid should be delivered in a way that takes into account the situation of conflict and how these might interact. At times, this may mean that decisions need to be made about activities, such as where they are delivered or how beneficiaries are selected, which may upset some actors.
Conflict sensitivity is about minimising harm, not doing no harm
Aid activities aim to foster a general improvement in conditions, but any change in society will have winners and losers. In conflict affected countries, as elsewhere, there are actors who have interests in preserving the status quo and who resist efforts to change it. Structurally, aid activities can create economic change that might improve conditions for some more than others, or the relative balance between groups. Consequently, any aid activities can cause actual or perceived harms to some parts of society or risk a pushback from particular conflict actors. Not providing assistance may also lead to harms, in a situation of humanitarian need or through missed opportunities for recovery or development.
Conflict sensitivity, therefore, should not be seen as an attempt to eliminate the risk of doing any harm through activities, which is likely to be impossible and could lead to decision making paralysis. Rather, it is an intentional, systematic effort to reduce the risk and impact of harms wherever possible. It is also about balancing the benefits of our assistance with potential harms to assess whether our activities bring a net benefit.
Conflict sensitivity is a responsibility of all aid practitioners
Some aid practitioners have told us that they feel conflict sensitivity is ‘not their business’ because they deliver narrow technical aid, or direct humanitarian assistance, or they focus on economic recovery. They feel that thinking about peace and conflict should be left to political advisors and peacebuilding organisations.
All aid activities attempt to transform humanitarian, economic and social outcomes for recipients. By doing so, they touch on the issues at the heart of what makes societies peaceful, such as how effectively (and inclusively) society is governed, who is most disadvantaged and how the economy works. Aid affects relationships (and the balance of power) between individuals and groups and strengthens or mitigates the reasons for conflict and capacities for peace in societies. These impacts may be slight, but they can also be unexpectedly significant and entrench or break cycles of conflict at local or even national levels. It also undermines the sustainability of aid which seeks to deliver assistance in countries under conflict.
Given this potential impact, it is the responsibility of all aid practitioners to consider the conflict sensitivity of their activities and to make sure that the direct benefits of their activities are in perspective with the broader impact of their work.
Conflict sensitivity is about how we do our work, not just about consequences
When we have asked aid practitioners what conflict ‘insensitivity’ is, a common response has been that it is when a project has contributed to conflict – i.e. caused harm. There are a few problems with this. Firstly, conflict sensitivity harms caused by aid activities may be unknown even with robust analysis – they may depend on factors which we, as aid actors, cannot reasonably know and so could occur despite best efforts to mitigate them. Secondly, many harms, just like in risk management, are probabilistic – you cannot know for certain whether or not they will take place but you can take a good guess. Thirdly, conflict sensitivity harms are likely to be multi-dimensional – they are not solely the result of aid activities but are a mixture of a number of different factors. Finally, this approach concentrates on direct harms and does not consider opportunities to contribute to peace (or the costs of missing these).
When framed in this way, some aid actors resist engaging on conflict sensitivity to avoid accepting responsibility for conflict harms.
A better definition of conflict insensitivity is that it is when aid practitioners act in a way that is blind to the conflict situation. Conflict sensitivity asks practitioners to ensure that they have reasonably considered the ways in which their activities may interact with peace and conflict and made adjustments to their activities in response. The word ‘reasonable’ is important here. Where there is a need for urgent, life-saving humanitarian assistance, it is not reasonable to expect an exhaustive conflict analysis be conducted and so there may be a higher chance of unexpected conflict sensitivity interactions. If a harm subsequently does occur, either because it was unexpected or because it occurred despite mitigations, then the practitioner has a responsibility to respond accordingly, but it does not necessarily mean that they had not been acting in a conflict sensitive manner in the first place.
What conflict sensitivity means in practice
Fundamentally, conflict sensitivity is an approach that requires us to change the way we work to minimise harms and maximise positive impacts on peace.
To do this, conflict sensitivity is often described as having three steps:
- Understand the context – Develop a nuanced understanding of the peace and conflict context in which aid activities are being implemented.
- Identify interactions – Identify the potential interactions, both negative and positive, between aid activities and the peace and conflict context.
- Adapt activities – Make changes to activities to minimise risks of contributing to conflict and maximise opportunities to contribute to sustainable peace.
In practice, these steps are often completed simultaneously. While conducting analysis, you are likely to identify risks and opportunities and, by identifying then, also identify the adaptations you need to make.
More fundamental is the need to think about when we go through these steps during programming. Some advisors suggest that conflict sensitivity is a continual process that should be happening all the time. While this is true to a degree and aid practitioners with significant experience in conflict sensitivity will likely automatically identify conflict sensitivity considerations as part of their day-to-day work, it is also practical to identify where in the programming cycle is it worth paying particular attention to conflict sensitivity.
The table below highlights the priority tasks from a conflict sensitivity perspective which should be taken at different stages of the programme cycle, including the tools to be used.
Programme stage | Conflict sensitivity priorities | Tools to assist |
Donor prioritisation and funding process |
|
|
Project design |
|
|
Project implementation |
|
|
Project evaluation | Review lessons learned for conflict sensitivity of subsequent projects. | Conflict sensitivity monitoring log |