Step 1 : Assess your organisation’s institutional capacity for conflict sensitivity, using the matrix in Annex 1.

There are various aspects of the make-up of any organisation (whether it be a government, donor, INGO or local NGO) that will impact on its ability to behave in a conflict-sensitive manner. Grouping these aspects under the five key headings in Table 2 will help to develop an understanding of the existing capacity and opportunities for conflict sensitivity. The matrix in Annex 1 provides tangible examples of all the aspects detailed below.

A. Institutional will and commitment

All organisations have ‘institutional drivers’, both internal and external, that contribute to setting priorities and focussing resources. Institutional will is really about how interested the organisation is in a topic and what priority it gives to it. Conflict issues or related factors such as quality and impact assessment may be very high on the institutional agenda and have a lot of institutional commitment; or may be quite low on the agenda with little commitment. Questions to ask to assess the degree of commitment might include:

• is there an internal policy statement on the issue (or a closely related issue); for example a statement on ‘Improving practice in conflict areas’ (or equivalent)?
• are there dedicated personnel assigned to furthering the mainstreaming of the issue, eg a conflict adviser in the Humanitarian Department of a large INGO?
• is the issue high on the organisational agenda, eg is it regularly discussed in staff and / or management meetings?

B. Organisational culture and institutional structures

The organisational culture means the attitudes and structures that permeate the agency. The type of organisational culture has implications for an organisation's capacity to mainstreaming conflict sensitivity. For example, some organisations have very hierarchical structures while others are highly decentralised: the factors which help or hinder mainstreaming will be different in each case. Another example is the organisation with a highly oral rather than written tradition: this may impair organisational learning, especially if staff turnover is high, thus making mainstreaming more difficult. Where there are unhelpful features in the culture, you need to assess how important it is to change them, and to ask whether there is the will to change.

C. Capacity development

Where sufficient institutional commitment exists to mainstream conflict sensitivity, including a commitment to invest in change in organisational culture and structures, developing staff skills and knowledge is important to sustaining and deepening the organisational momentum. Whereas technical service-delivery skills have traditionally been prioritised in development, and particularly in relief programmes, a stronger emphasis on analytical skills and context knowledge is necessary in order to mainstream conflict sensitivity. These include conflict transformation and peacebuilding skills, but also:

• relationship-building skills
• process and analytical understanding
• lateral thinking
• applied social science knowledge (socio-political / political-economic / anthropological)
• knowledge of the geographical context and the issues pertaining to it
• cultural sensitivity.

D. External relationships

The impact of organisations on the context is closely linked to that of their partners and other organisations that either share operational space or can directly or indirectly impact upon it. An organisation’s ability to be conflict sensitive is also directly influenced by the external environment, including the funding and policy parameters within which they function. Assessing institutional capacity for conflict sensitivity – and taking steps to build capacity – therefore needs to take account of the conflict-sensitive capacities of the organisation’s external partners and others they share operational space with, including implementing partners, funding agencies and political actors.

E. Accountability

Suitable accountability systems to manage the organisational mainstreaming process are essential. Policy guidelines, training, appointment of dedicated conflict advisers, etcetera, need to be complemented by clear and well thought-out accountability systems that provide appropriate rewards and disincentives to encourage staff to consider their tasks through a conflict-sensitive lens and to plan, implement, monitor and evaluate their actions and programmes in those terms. Finally and most importantly institutional capacity must be developed to ensure accountability for the impact of action (and inaction) on the communities at which interventions are targeted.