Conflict sensitive approaches to development, humanitarian assistance and peace building

Next: 6 Choosing the right framework for conflict analysis

5 Good practice in conflict analysis

The following section addresses key concerns in relation to undertaking conflict analysis, as the conflict-analysis process itself needs to be conflict sensitive. This section offers examples of good practice based on consultations in Kenya, Uganda and Sri Lanka.

Building capacity for conflict analysis

Conducting conflict analysis requires human and financial resources, which organisations may find hard to afford, especially if conflict sensitivity has not yet become a mainstreamed policy within the organisation (see Chapter 5). As a result, this may require systematically and sustainably building the need for conflict analysis into funding applications (for civil society organisations), budgets, planning guidelines, and human and organisational development plans. According to the level of awareness and capacity in your organisation, capacity building for conflict analysis may involve:

helping staff to better understand the context in which they work. For example, in post-conflict contexts, staff of international organisations often do not recognise the links between their work and possible violence. Local government or civil society staff, on the other hand, may be too involved at the micro level to see the larger picture

making sure organisations give conflict analyses and their integration equal priority to other forms of assessment (governance, poverty, needs assessments, etc) (see Section 4)

wherever possible, integrating conflict analyses into established procedures (eg strategic plans, needs assessments, etc), as well as into the contributions of service providers (eg terms of reference for short-term advisors, calls for proposals / tenders, etc). When preparing such processes, it is fundamental to make sufficient time to accommodate conflict analyses

budgeting for conflict analysis in funding applications and operational budgets. Donors (and the tax payers to whom donors are accountable) may need to be sensitised to the importance of conflict analysis. NGOs often find that donors either (a) assume or even require that conflict analysis be conducted at the project proposal stage, without being aware of its costs for smaller organisations; or (b) do not prioritise conflict analysis at all

supporting staff in acquiring conflict analysis skills on an ongoing basis, for example through staff development plans

developing an external network of national and international experts on which to draw for specific tasks.

Who conducts the analysis?

Conflict analysis can be undertaken for various purposes. The purpose will determine the specific process and will help to determine who should conduct the analysis. For example, if the purpose is to promote a participatory and transformative process within a community, the community should play a vital role in the planning, implementation (eg data collection) and assessment of the analysis. If the purpose is to develop a strategy for engagement in a given context, it may be that an internal team from within the organisation developing the strategy should lead the process. Some elements of the analysis may be highly sensitive, and thus may need to be confidential.

Local project staff typically conduct participatory conflict analysis exercises with communities to decide on further project activities. Conflict analysis, in the context of project monitoring by international NGOs, is frequently carried out by national and international staff, sometimes with the support of an external adviser. Donors tend to commission external experts or specialised institutes in their own countries for countrywide conflict analysis studies, while governments may have dedicated departments to deal with specific conflict issues. In any case, it is important to get the right mix of skills and backgrounds, which can be summarised as follows:

good conflict analysis skills
good knowledge of the context and related history
sensitivity to the local context
local language skills
sectoral / technical expertise as required
sufficient status / credibility to see through recommendations
good knowledge of the organisations involved
representation of different perspectives within the context under consideration
moderation skills, team work, possibly counselling
facilitation skills.

The quality and relevance of the analysis mainly depends on the people involved. These include the person or team conducting the analysis, on the one hand, and other conflict actors, on the other. Conflict analysis consists of eliciting the views of the different groups and placing them into a larger analytical framework. The quality of the analysis will depend on how faithfully it reflects the views received – views may be distorted or given too much or too little weight during the filtering process, either inadvertently or deliberately. It will also be influenced by how the team is perceived by various actors within the context. For example, if the team is trusted by all actors, they are likely to get more and better information than if they are perceived to be too close to certain parties.

Every conflict analysis is highly political, and bias is a constant concern. It may be difficult to be objective, as personal sympathies develop and make it difficult to maintain an unbiased approach. Even a “fly-in” expert will be influenced by his / her values, previous knowledge of the country, the perspectives of his or her employer, and the people s / he is working with. It may therefore be more productive to spell out one’s own position and preconceptions and be clear about the conditions and restrictions under which the conflict analysis takes place. The collective basis of the conflict analysis team may also ensure higher levels of objectivity and impartiality.

Selecting the appropriate framework for conflict analysis

When planning to use a specific framework to support conflict analysis, it is worth considering its strengths and weaknesses.

In general, organisations may find that tools do not necessarily offer new information, particularly if they have already developed strong linkages to institutions and communities in the area under consideration. Their main value lies in guiding the systematic search for this information and providing a framework for analysing it, thus prompting critical questions and offering new perspectives. Tools can also enhance internal communication about conflict within an organisation, eg between provinces and the capital, or between field offices and headquarters. Similarly, conflict analysis tools can guide consultation with a range of communities and other stakeholders. Finally, international actors appreciate that standardised tools ensure a certain degree of comparability between different conflict analyses.

On the other hand, conflict analysis tools should not be mistaken for a substitute for detailed local knowledge and human judgement nor stifle creative thinking. Tools that offer pre-defined lists of structural causes or indicators may be too general to adequately capture a specific conflict. Tools may also be too comprehensive for an organisation with limited research capacities, or not focussed enough to answer specific questions. For these reasons, organisations will tend to customise existing tools to their own specific needs, objectives and capacities.

**Box 7: Adapting tools for Northern Uganda**
In Uganda, a consortium of INGOs and government representatives consensually developed a hybrid conflict analysis tool that best met their needs and at the same time held maximum relevance in the Northern Uganda context. The hybrid tool developed by the consortium uses the profile-actors-context framework outlined in Figure 2 above, with components of tools developed by World Vision, ACORD and Oxfam in Uganda, the Local Capacities for Peace Project (Do No Harm), and various other tools. The consortium then used the tool they had developed to conduct a shared conflict analysis and to collectively build the capacity of their field staff to conduct and update similar analyses in the future. (The capacity building and field research work is still ongoing at the time of writing).

There are some further issues around tools that organisations should consider:

visual aids (eg graphs) and indicator ratings used in some tools suggest a degree of precision and objectivity that usually does not stand up to reality. Participants in a conflict analysis should therefore be encouraged to reflect on the subjectivity of their assessments
tools relying on some technical support (eg software) may appear intimidating to some participants. Similarly, extensive lists of indicators tend to make the analysis unmanageable
in general, aim to create a “safe space” for extensive discussions.

Collecting information for conflict analysis

It is important to gather information from as wide a range of sources as possible and to listen to many different actors, in order to broaden the understanding of the context and to include a wide range of perspectives (see Box 3).

Box 8: FORED Sri Lanka
FORED undertakes surveys with women in target communities (women are FORED’s main beneficiaries) to understand the socio-economic situation of the community. To gain the trust and confidence of the women, field staff visit the families and spend time with the women in the kitchen, helping them with their tasks. Information gathered in the questionnaire is thus complemented through indirect cross-referencing from these informal “chats”. Information is further triangulated (see Box 9) with knowledgeable community leaders.

Various techniques can be used to gather these perspectives, from surveys and interviews to group discussion and stakeholder consultations (see Box 4). In contexts where groups cannot openly and directly discuss conflict, it may be useful to consider having separate meetings. Meetings and interviews must be conducted in a language in which participants can confidently express their views.

Box 9: Stakeholder consultations
International and government agencies now routinely use stakeholder meetings to collect information in preparation for certain policy decisions. They typically hold one or a series of workshops in the capital and large district towns, to which representatives of different interest groups (eg local government, private sector, civil society, etc) are invited, to discuss specific issues. Although an improvement on former practices, this form of stakeholder consultation presents a number of difficulties: one-way communication: where “participation” is misunderstood to mean helping to implement political decisions rather than helping to shape them, meetings will be used to announce work plans and expected commitments, rather than to get feedback lack of capacity: grassroots representatives often do not fully grasp the context of the meeting or have difficulties in discussing certain issues power: people bring their power relations with them into the meeting room, and it is unrealistic to expect low-ranking people to speak up against their superiors/patrons in public. For the same reason, it is difficult to discuss conflict issues process fatigue: participants who have repeatedly undergone consultations tend to voice solutions, before going through the step-by-step process that leads to the identification of core issues marginalisation: women and other marginalised groups usually lack equal representation. Participants typically over-represent well-educated, relatively wealthy urban elites. Care therefore needs to be taken to include representation from both urban and rural communities as well as poor communities (whether urban or rural).

The information gathered will not all be reliable. Gatekeepers such as local leaders and interpreters may try to influence information. Ordinary people will rarely dare to speak up against them in public or even in private. Information is also largely determined by access. Aid agencies report restrictions of access by the national government, their own governments, or local strongmen, which limit the type of information they are able to gather. In certain contexts, when information is a scarce commodity, it tends to become highly political. There nonetheless exist some research methods, such as triangulation, which aim to reduce some of these limitations (see Box 10).

Box 10: Triangulation
Given the difficulties of obtaining reliable information for undertaking conflict analysis, it is often useful to use a mix of data gathering methods (“triangulation”) – for example a desk study, quantitative surveys, expert interviews, stakeholder consultations, and feedback workshops to present and discuss conclusions. The aim of triangulation is to verify each piece of information with at least two corroborative or complementary sources, to obtain data that eventually “matches up” and clarifies differing perspectives. (For more information about triangulation, see Chapter 3, Module 1, section 3.2).

Conducting the analysis

Conflict analysis requires a great deal of care and sensitivity due to the highly political nature of the information gathered. A participatory process can become transformative by helping participants to define their own conflict – an important step towards addressing it. Because conflict analysis touches on sensitive issues such as power, ownership, and neutrality, however, it can also provoke conflict by bringing sensitive issues to the fore.

For this reason, the conflict analysis itself needs to be carried out in a conflict sensitive manner. It is thus good practice to get stakeholders on board early on and avoid antagonising potential spoilers (see section 2.3).

In particular, when undertaking the conflict analysis, it is important to show respect for people’s ownership and feelings, to include a wide range of actors and perspectives, to be transparent about the goals of the process and to link the analysis to demonstrable action. In many contexts, it is fundamental to ensure that staff, partners and communities are not at risk through the analysis process, for example as a result of insensitive questions being asked in public or researchers being sent to insecure areas. In such situations, the commitment to transparency may need to be restricted by the need to ensure security for some sensitive elements of the analysis.

The conflict analysis process can also help foster partnership and co-ordination, while promoting a shared understanding of the context. The joint donor government / civil society conflict assessment in Nigeria (see Box 11) may prove a valuable experience from which to learn.

Box 11: Strategic Conflict Assessment in Nigeria: An inclusive and multi-stakeholder approach¹
In Nigeria, a radically different approach has been taken to conducting a conflict assessment at the strategic level. First, the assessment has been country owned with the Institute for Peace and Conflict Resolution (IPCR) taking the lead. The IPCR is linked directly to the Nigerian Presidency and was established by the Nigerian government in 2000. Second, the assessment has been supported by a multi-donor group consisting of four main donors – DFID, the World Bank, USAID and UNDP. Third, civil society actors have been involved in the process strategically from the outset. Background and objectives The inclusive and joint approach to undertaking the Strategic Conflict Assessment (SCA) was adopted by both the Nigerian government and the supporting donors, in recognition of a number of issues which needed addressing. These were: a lack of coherent analysis of the causes and dynamics of conflict in Nigeria a lack of coordination in the analysis and responses to conflict by the government, civil society and donors (with civil society focusing mainly on local / micro conflict issues and responses, whilst at a more macro level the government found it difficult to understand the linkages between the different conflicts affecting the country) a recognition by donors that if any donor undertook such an assessment unilaterally, or even collectively, without the consent of the Nigerian government, it could result in considerable obstacles and high political risks, due to the sensitive nature of conflict in Nigeria. A joint approach would reap considerable benefits in reducing those risks. The overall objective of the SCA was to provide an analysis of conflict in Nigeria which looked at all areas of national life and would feed into the strategic, or policy, level in order to inform national and international debates about possible responses and provide specific recommendations to government, the international community, the private sector and civil society. The study also aimed to develop and inform the IPCR’s own work and capacity. Process and methodology The process was initiated in May 2002 with an inclusive workshop of stakeholders including the donors, government and a broad range of civil society groups . The objectives of the workshop were to build knowledge of relevant activities being undertaken by different groups (who is doing what and where); to provide a basis for building awareness of the conflict assessment process, providing space for feedback from different stakeholders; and to strengthen the interaction and relationship between the different actors. The methodology used in the SCA was based on the DFID Conflict Assessment Guidance (see Annex 1) but adapted through modifications by the IPCR and field teams (researchers). The SCA was undertaken by teams of IPCR and consultants in two phases: Phase one involved desk-based research mapping the causes, actors and dynamics of conflict, based on written sources. Phase two tested the findings of phase one through fieldwork carried out by research teams in all the Nigerian states which endeavoured to involve different stakeholders and interest groups. Phase two also focused on considering responses and policy options. A team leader collaborated in the writing of a summary report for each phase. The phase two report was also scrutinised in a technical workshop in October 2002 involving a technical panel comprised of experts from the different stakeholder groups (government, donors and civil society). Outcome and next steps In terms of future responses, the phase two report provides a detailed agenda for change on the political stage. Recommendations are directed at the different actors, including the federal government, state governments, local governments, civil society, the international community and the IPCR itself. They are divided into recommendations that need immediate, medium term and long-term action (those on which work can start now but where results are not expected for 8-10 years). In particular, the report recommends immediate attention to early warning and conflict prevention in recognition of the lack of Nigerian early warning systems and the absence of systematic provision for preventative responses. The report identifies an over reliance on and limited or even negative effect of military responses. In order to share the research findings a further stakeholder workshop was held in March 2003 which considered the issue of ‘what next’ and the roles of different stakeholders in taking the findings forward. The discussion was centred on a number of themes – security sector reform and small arms, early warning and early response, political conflict, social and economic causes, the role of civil society and mainstreaming into donor and government action. Following from the phase 2 report and stakeholder workshop, a National Action Plan (NAP) has been drafted which outlines a concrete agenda for taking forward the recommendations in the report, including a strategy for mainstreaming conflict sensitivity within government institutions. In terms of progress to date, the SCA process has produced a number of demonstrable steps forward in terms of promoting conflict sensitivity in the Nigerian context. These include: steps by the Nigerian government to integrate the findings of the SCA into the PRSP process steps taken by donors to review their strategies and approaches on the basis of the analysis an increased sense of awareness and empowerment by civil society of the role they can play in pushing the agenda forward.