Having defined what the project objectives are, the intervention process itself must be designed in a conflict-sensitive fashion. The principles of transparency and accountability require developing a clear set of selection criteria for who, where, and when.

Who: Project beneficiaries, project staff, and operational partners

Experiences with Mary B. Anderson’s Do No Harm framework¹ show the importance (and, sometimes, interaction) of carefully designed selection criteria for these three elements. Each of them can influence the causes, actors and dynamics of conflict in a positive or negative way. The identity of the persons or groups (ie their political affiliation, gender, caste, socio-economic profile, etc.) can have an important impact on the conflict. The selection criteria should therefore be directly derived from the conflict analysis and the project objective.

Project beneficiaries

The selection of beneficiaries must relate to both the needs assessment (or other form of assessment) and the conflict analysis:

• is the selection based on need (ie in terms of equity)? or should an entire community benefit, irrespective of differences in need (ie selection based on equality)?
• how does the selection relate to divisions within a community and what are the implications of that?

An equity-based approach, which by definition cannot favour inclusiveness, would normally require the use of selection criteria to determine who falls within the beneficiary group. This improves the transparency of the intervention. In some situations the community themselves decide who should be the beneficiaries, generating and implementing the selection criteria. Such processes may require carefully built-in safeguards to ensure equitable results – eg so that no one group is able to dominate and exclude other groups.

Project staff

Local and expatriate staff can both bring either benefits or disadvantages. Certain nationalities may be seen as biased because of political tensions between the host country and their country of origin – or may be generally well received if there is a history of friendship. Speaking local languages or dialects can be a key element of conflict sensitivity, but local staff may not always be perceived as neutral. Staffing can be a key element of conflict sensitivity (see Box 3). Situating the proposed intervention within the conflict analysis should reveal such sensitivities.

Success in mediation and intervention in disputes often hinges on the status of the intervener. Sometimes it may be useful to be able to speak the language of local politics; on other occasions someone totally unencumbered by local knowledge may be more effective. Foreigners, particularly in places with a colonial history, are clearly identified as outsiders; their “otherness” may be a severe handicap, or a great advantage, depending on the context. They need to know which.

Operational partners

Developing partnerships is a challenging process and needs to be undertaken with care. Many of the issues should be revealed through the conflict analysis. Of particular concern is the understanding of who the actors are, and what their relationships are with other actors. For instance, it may be that a potential partner organisation has links to an armed group, or that personnel move regularly between the potential partner and the armed group. In some situations conflict protagonists have gained legitimacy through partnerships with international actors. Such knowledge can be acquired only by a thorough conflict analysis, focussing on the actors.

Equally important are the perceptions project participants have of the potential partners. They may be perceived as biased, insensitive to conflict, or to have links with potential or existing conflict protagonists. Whether or not these perceptions are grounded in reality, they are part of the operational context and should be taken into account in decisions about partnerships.

The capacity of potential partners is also important: what staff do they have? What is their mandate? What is their track record? What are the prospects for capacity building? CARE Sri Lanka have developed a partner assessment tool, leading to a process of partner capacity building (see Box 4). The decision to engage in such capacity development remains context- specific – in some situations an open and honest dialogue with potential partners on their conflict sensitivity could form part of a process of building this sensitivity. In other situations this may not be possible, and a decision may be taken not to engage in capacity development, not to engage with the partner at all, or to engage only in ways that build on what capacity the partner already has.

Assessment of the capacity of the intervening actors to impact conflict and peace is an essential part of assessing the potential for conflict and peace. Even if an institution has the responsibility for implementing a programme, it may not have the capacity. This is often true for governments or civil society in conflict-prone or -affected countries. International institutions often jump in to fill the gap, but they must be careful not to replace government capacity, creating a parallel system that impedes development of local capacity in the long term. A proactive strategy of capacity building may be the best option, even (in some cases) at the cost of low performance.

Staff concerned with implementation may not understand how the programmes/projects being implemented or supported impact on conflict and peace. They often see these issues as outside their operating situation, and overlook both their own potential for positive or negative impact, and the capacity of their organisation to make a significant difference. Involvement in the conflict analysis, programme development and monitoring and evaluation will help broaden their horizons, and perceptions.

Where: which geographic area to support

Determining the geographic area of support requires a full reflection of the relationship between the outcomes of the needs assessment process and the conflict analysis. It should also be developed with the input of all sectors of the community.

The selection can have a direct influence on a conflict context, for instance by exacerbating the violation of land rights, by providing (often unintended) support to certain military or economic interests, or by legitimising the political power of some groups or individuals. These are cases where an intervention can inadvertently exacerbate conflict (and even directly endanger the lives of the population) or miss the opportunity to mitigate it.

Remember too that most interventions will not benefit the entire population; there will inevitably be non-beneficiary people or communities located at varying proximity to the beneficiaries. The transparency of beneficiary selection has been addressed above, but it may be necessary to communicate this more widely, or even to broaden the selection, perhaps in coordination with other intervening organisations.

It is important to understand the geographic determination of the beneficiary community – does it fall along lines of division? Could it worsen an existing division – or create a new one? If the intervention specifically seeks to impact conflict, then this focus in itself will determine geographic locations for operation. These questions should all be addressed through the conflict analysis, ensuring that the intervention is targeted at the geographic level (eg national, district, local) appropriate to the context.

When: Timing and length of intervention

In conflict situations, time management is a core resource. Several ‘lessons learned’ documents on conflict-related planning have highlighted the importance of timing in the injection of resources. Again, linking back to the conflict analysis is key.

Two elements of the analysis demand particular attention: conflict triggers and scenarios. Conflict triggers may be time-bound, such as an election or annual cycles of offensives linked to seasonal changes. Understanding triggers is important in deciding when to start and when to exit, and when contemplating any major changes in the intervention. Scenarios (see Chapter 2 Section 2.4) should be related to the proposed project timeline, and assessed for potential windows of opportunity or vulnerabilities. This may involve a reflection on the motivations behind the timeline – is the length of intervention being defined by organisational objectives, resource constraints, or by the needs of the context?