Conflict sensitive approaches to development, humanitarian assistance and peace building

Next: 3.4.3 Monitoring and evaluation

3.4.2 Implementation stage

Key steps at this stage include:

development of structures for donor coordination and donor / government management
decisions on the instruments (mechanisms) for implementation
implementation
monitoring

Management structures and partnership issues

Building the requisite shared understanding at sector level involves:

addressing conflict sensitivity within donor coordination frameworks and other processes. Discussions should be directly linked to the national level discussions to ensure coherence and consistency (particular attention to this is required where personnel work at only one of the sector or national levels). Undertaking a joint conflict analysis can assist the process of developing common perspectives.
addressing conflict sensitivity within donor / government management structures. These structures provide the key interface between donors and governments and the framework within which strategies are developed, implementation is monitored, and reviews planned. It is therefore vital that conflict sensitivity is considered within the framework of these structures. A participatory joint donor / government conflict assessment (including the deeper analysis for the sector) is again a good way of fostering agreement around key conflict issues and actions.

Financial instruments

Table 4 describes the three most common financial instruments available for donor support to sectoral approaches.

The right choice of instrument is very important, and must take account of the conflict analysis. Making the most appropriate choice involves a process of anticipating the impact of different instruments, evaluating the benefits against the risks and developing strategies to minimise potential negative impacts. The information gained through the conflict analysis is clearly relevant to this process.

Table 4: Financial instruments used in sectoral approaches
Sectoral support
Technical assistance	Project funding	Sector earmarked support (programme funding) General budgetary support (donor pooled and sector programme funding)
Technical Assistance (TA) is the transfer, adaptation, mobilisation and utilisation of services, skills, knowledge and technology, through the provision of personnel, training, equipment, consultancies, study visits and seminars.	Donor-funded activities support the government’s sector policy framework, but are managed as projects – usually using government systems (reporting / contracting) but sometimes relying on donor management systems	Coordinated aid from a number of donors is disbursed and accounted for through government systems and earmarked to help finance an agreed policy and sector expenditure plan.
N ote: This table ¹ is necessarily stylised and a number of variations will occur depending on country circumstances. Different approaches may be used simultaneously as sectoral approaches are usually a hybrid of funding forms.

Table 5 below gives examples of relevant questions for general budgetary support, as this funding instrument is, from a conflict perspective, the most risky. Other instruments have their own challenges and raise other questions.

For example in the case of project funding, a possible impact of government management might be increased opportunities for corruption and domination by elite interests, while management by donors might undermine government capacity and legitimacy.

Table 5: Anticipating impacts of general or targeted budgetary support on the context
Key elements of conflict analysis	Examples of questions for consideration in anticipating impacts
Profile	Is budgetary support the most appropriate choice for all geographical areas in a country? Do the instruments of implementation need to be adopted for different regions, particularly conflict-affected regions where government capacity to deliver may be weaker?
Causes	Is there a risk that budgetary support might give external credibility to a government that lacks internal legitimacy? If government corruption is a cause of conflict, what are the risks of budgetary support exacerbating this problem? What needs to be done to minimise this risk? Will the use of budgetary support serve to strengthen weak government structures and bolster reform programmes? Are government structures strong enough to manage flows of funding? Does the provision of budgetary support through the central government risk an overemphasis on the capital city and favoured regions and neglect of marginalized areas? If so what can be done to mitigate this?
Actors	If the national government / military is a key conflict actor, is there a likelihood of diversion of funds to the military or elites? Are there risks that the nature and pace of the reform processes might undermine certain vested interests and increase conflict risks?
Dynamics	Are political issues, such as human rights abuses, likely to worsen, thus increasing the likelihood of a suspension of budgetary assistance, which in turn may exacerbate instability? Is budgetary support a realistic choice, in terms of a window of opportunity for providing macro-economic stability to a weak, but legitimate post-conflict government?

A number of strategies may be developed in order to minimise potential negative impacts, including:

integrating anti-corruption activities into the sector strategy
integrating a component of institutional capacity building for weak governance structures to ensure that they can manage funds and implementation processes
ensuring adequate representation / involvement of local government and other stakeholders in the planning and implementation of the sector strategy (see section on stakeholder involvement below)
considering budget plans that address issues such as equity of resource allocation between regions and inter-group disparities
supporting mechanisms to ensure the transparency of budgetary allocations and military spending (eg military spending reviews).

Budgetary support should not be the chosen option if the risks are too high.

The implementation process

It is important not only that the overall strategy and choice of instruments of support are sensitive to conflict, but also that the process of implemention is undertaken in a conflict-sensitive way.

Implementation involves a range of different actors, which will vary depending on the instrument used (see Table 4). These actors include implementing agencies (such as INGOs and government contractors), different tiers and agencies of government, local community users' groups, etc. It will also require the active involvement of the government / donor management structures (see “Management structures and partnership issues” in section 3.4.2 above).

These actors need to be sensitive to the impact of their actions on the context and to be aware of the principles of conflict sensitivity (see Introduction). Governments and donors responsible for overseeing the development and implementation of the sectoral approach can take steps to ensure that these actors are adopting a conflict-sensitive approach to their implementation process. They need to make implementing actors aware of the findings of the conflict analysis and key conflict issues (preferably involving them in the analysis process) and to develop systems to ensure that they are regularly monitoring the impact of activities on conflict, making adjustments and feeding back findings that can be incorporated into the overall analysis (see section 3.4.3 below). Where contractors and implementing agencies are used, a conflict-sensitive approach should be made a condition of the contract. Chapter 3 Module 3 provides further guidance on how implementing actors can take conflict sensitivity on board.

Next: 3.4.3 Monitoring and evaluation