A balance must be struck between the flexibility necessary to be conflict sensitive, and the commitment to existing plans. Understanding the role of the intervention in the changing context is key to determining the appropriate reaction to the situation. Some of the most common forms of adjustment are set out below:

Adjust programming Ensuring that the intervention remains relevant depends on timely adjustments of project parameters according to a consistent self-assessment. Thus the choice of in what way, with whom, where, and when the intervention is implemented may require review and change.

Adjust contingency plans Monitoring procedures may reveal unforeseen circumstances for which contingency plans will need to be adjusted.

Adopt an advocacy role The advocacy role gives priority to the non-confrontational presentation of complaints and queries to responsible authorities in a manner acceptable to those authorities. This approach implies a degree of confidentiality and trust, based on constant verification of the limits to acceptable behaviour, and on the avoidance of any form of coercion. It requires continual presence on location, and a high degree of tolerance to conflict instigators.

Adopt a support role In situations where the authorities are weak or simply dysfunctional, but social order still prevails, the support role mobilises energies from a wide range of sources for the achievement of certain life-saving actions. This role is predominant, for example, with NGOs working around or with ‘failed state’ administrations, and when conditions lead to chronic human rights violations.

Re-negotiate ground rules Ground rules and terms of access have been noted in Box 4 and Annex 1. In the event of a breach of agreement, these ground rules may need to be re-affirmed or re-negotiated.

Freeze operations Where a programme or project is found to be unexpectedly negatively impacting on the context, or the context is negatively impacting on the intervention, it may be necessary to temporarily place implementation on hold until a more conflict-sensitive approach can be developed. The period for freezing implementation must be kept to an absolute minimum so beneficiaries, suppliers and staff do not suffer additional hardships. Further, the intervention must adjust to meet the newly developing context – waiting for the context to change such that it meets the intervention’s implementation plan is simply not conflict-sensitive.

Denunciation This approach places a greater price on respect for values than on the continuation of programmes, and was the founding principle of Médecins Sans Frontières which prefers to withdraw from an area rather than continue to provide assistance that could prolong a destructive status quo. Denunciation may place personnel under considerable pressure, even insecurity, and must be built on an ability to pull out easily. For peacebuilders, the principle of impartiality and the need to maintain relationships with all actors effectively preclude denunciation.

Abandonment Even though the criteria for the exceptional decision to suddenly terminate a project should be defined from the start, conflict-sensitive implementation must leave open the way for substantial adjustments to fit the evolving context. A decision to withdraw should be seen as a last resort, and taken only if a careful review of the context (see ‘freezing operations’ above) reveals that the intervention cannot be adjusted to interact positively with its context.

If a decision to abandon an intervention is taken, conflict sensitivity becomes particularly important. Proper exit management will consider first the safety of everyone involved (not only project staff) and will also put in place adequate mechanisms for the preservation of the project’s impact. More than ever, for a conflict-sensitive withdrawal, there is a need to review the conflict analysis to understand the consequences of different termination strategies and how each approach to abandonment will affect actors and dynamics of conflict.

UNHCR in Burundi has resorted to building less capital intensive structures in provinces from which it might have to withdraw, and to investing more in training and social mobilisation. Many agencies still struggle during the preparation phase to define the minimum space required for implementation in highly volatile environments. Options and methods for withdrawing conflict-sensitively – and more importantly, for adjusting implementation to reflect an evolving context – become clearer during implementation when monitoring can be used to regularly update the conflict analysis.