Key aspects necessary for developing institutional capacity.

Sub-issues that form part of the key aspect (list is suggestive, not complete)

Possible strengths, as they relate to the sub-issues

Possible weaknesses, as they relate to the sub-issues

Suggested actions / useful experiences

A. Institutional commitment

Key questions:

Is the external context (both in terms of in-country and regional situation, and global policy environment) conducive to CS?

What is the current extent of internal institutional commitment to follow through on CS within the organisation?

How deep and how wide is the organisational commitment to CS?

Internally:

1. Leadership’s personal background

2. Leadership’s perception of the organisational history

3. Commitment at non-management levels

Externally:

4. Overarching policy frameworks

5. National, regional and global political context and events

1. Leadership have personal experience and understanding of the importance of CS

2. The identity and past experiences of the organisation (as perceived by its leadership) underline the need for a conflict-sensitive approach

3. There are strong champions for CS in key management and non-management positions

4. Policy frameworks are conducive to mainstreaming a CS approach (strong link with the more general political climate)

5. National, regional and / or international political events and processes are conducive to prioritising CS

1. Leadership lack understanding / experience of how CS can help the organisation achieve its mandate and / or leadership is ideologically opposed to CS

2. Past organisational experiences suggest that CS would not be appropriate (eg the organisation has had a traumatic experience of peacebuilding programming)

3. Lack of understanding and commitment to CS on non-management levels and / or resistance to change

4. Policy climate does not prioritise CS

5. CS is perceived as ‘too sensitive’ due to (national, regional and / or global) political events

Internal and external advocacy and awareness raising contributes to developing institutional commitment. References to how CS the organisation fulfil its existing policy commitments and achieve its mandate.

Western donor agencies have signed up to the OECD-DAC guidelines on preventing violent conflict (2001). Reference to this commitment can be used as an advocacy tool.

Internal discussion forums can support strengthened institutional commitment as well as promote organisational change. For example, a UK-based development NGO has established a ‘conflict cluster’ open to all interested staff which meets twice a month to discuss issues of common concern in relation to conflict, providing a useful forum for cross-organisational exchange and learning.

Key aspects necessary for developing institutional capacity.

Sub-issues that form part of the key aspect (list is suggestive, not complete)

Possible strengths, as they relate to the sub-issues

Possible weaknesses, as they relate to the sub-issues

Suggested actions / useful experiences

B. Organisational culture and institutional structures

Key questions:

Is the organisational culture of the organisation enabling for CS?

Do existing institutional structures support conflict-sensitive practice and how might they need to change?

1. Communication: Extent of cross-organisational knowledge transfer and learning.

2. Hierarchy and structure: (De)centralised? Strongly hierarchical or not? Do the institutional structures inhibit or promote CS?

3. Systems and procedures: Existing policies and frameworks for planning and programming

1. Strong tradition of cross-departmental learning and documentation of lessons learned

2. Clear roles and responsibilities (whether centralised or decentralised structure). Benefit of clear focal points for conflict (conflict advisers, clusters, intra-organisational learning mechanisms etc)

3. Analysis of conflict (and associated political and power ‘process’ issues) can be fitted relatively easily into existing policy and operational frameworks.

1. Intra-departmental jealousies, ‘fiefdom mentalities’, artificial divisions and genuinely different cultures can breed conflict and inhibit learning

2. Overly centralised structures, generating a lack of ownership in and / or suspicion towards ‘central’ initiatives, or untransparent, decentralised structures inhibiting cross-organisational policy development. Potential risk of marginalisation if ‘peacebuilding’ is the exclusive domain of one (technical) organisational unit.

3. Existing policies and operational frameworks focus on outputs and ‘service delivery’, explicitly excluding more political analysis and / or more process-oriented frameworks.

Where agencies already have rights-based or ‘justice’ related frameworks, an explicit focus on conflict can be more easily integrated. For example, a UK-based NGO used a ‘human security’ approach (combining ‘freedom from want’ and ‘freedom from fear’) in its rights based programming framework, allowing it to integrate a conflict lens within its development work.

Several agencies have started employing conflict advisers on different levels, both within policy and operational departments, in headquarters and in the field. Having a combination of a ‘conflict / peacebuilding unit’ and focal points across existing departments and country offices is likely to be most effective.

Certain national governments in conflict areas have established offices of reconciliation or conflict prevention closely linked to the executive that lead and promote the issue more widely.

C. Capacity development

Key question:

What skills does my organisation as a whole, colleagues in different departments and partners need to have and / or develop for CS to become a reality?

1. Human resources

· Recruitment: What skills do we look for?

· Reward: What skills and achievement of what type of objectives are rewarded?

· Retention: How are skilled individuals retained?

2. Training and induction: What staff and partner skills do we seek to develop and how?

3. What analytical tools does the organisation currently use?

1. Understanding of the context and analytical capacity is a key component of recruitment and is also rewarded. Individuals with conflict and context skills are offered incentives to stay in the organisation (flexible postings, field / headquarter rotation systems, training opportunities, competitive salaries etc)

2. Induction and training on conflict-related issues are offered to both staff and partner organisations, including security training with a power analysis element, conflict transformation courses and / or advocacy training

3. Organisation is currently revising its handbook of operational practice – commitment to CS has been made

1. Technical and service delivery oriented skills are prioritised over analytical skills and context knowledge.

2. Induction and training programmes focus on technical skills and do not include power / political analysis (either operational or in an advocacy context)

3. Either no tools for conflict analysis used and / or other tools do not link analysis to practice

The recurrent dilemma with training programmes is that high staff turn-over undermines the impact of the investment. Some organisations, however, have had good experiences with induction programmes, including World Vision who require that all relief staff go through a Do No Harm training-of-trainers before they begin work.

Key aspects necessary for developing institutional capacity.

Sub-issues that form part of the key aspect (list is suggestive, not complete)

Possible strengths, as they relate to the sub-issues

Possible weaknesses, as they relate to the sub-issues

Suggested actions / useful experiences

D. External relationships

Key questions:

What kind of partnerships do we need to complement our own CS capacity building?

How do our external relationships (including with donors) and the context within which we operate influence our capacity building abilities?

1. Partners’ perspective on CS and capacity

2. Funding climate

3. Operating environment

1. Partners are enthusiastic about CS and have (or are able to develop) capacity for it

2. Indication that CS can bring more funds to the organisation

3. Operating environment allows time for reflection on CS and organisational change

1. Partners are uneasy about (or against) incorporating a CS approach and / or don’t have (or are unable to develop) capacity for it

2. The organisation’s funding structures make adopting a CS approach problematic (it will be hard to get resources for it)

3. High-intensity conflict and acute crisis make it near-impossible to invest time (and resources) in CS capacity building

Involving partners in the initial review and reflection process on CS may alleviate their concerns and give them ownership of the ensuing process.

Advocating for changes in funding parameters (using, for example, references to donor agencies’ own commitments) can be a useful way of seeking the necessary resources for CS capacity building.

E. Accountability

Key question:

What accountability measures are needed to advance conflict-sensitive policy and practice?

1. Appraisal and incentives (staff accountability)

2. Reporting (accountability to donors)

3. Participation and evaluations (accountability to stakeholders, see also “External relationships”, above)

1. Flexible staff appraisal systems that include evaluation of analytical skills and context understanding

2. Reporting structures emphasise organisational learning and encourage reference to both direct and indirect impacts

3. Partners and other local stakeholders participate in project/programme evaluations and are involved in follow-up

1. Appraisal systems emphasise technical skills and ‘output’ performance over analysis and process

2. Inflexible reporting criteria restrict learning and exclude an assessment of wider (unintended) impacts

3. Evaluations involve only the organisation and the donor, no significant input from other stakeholders

A UK-based NGO has instituted a project evaluation system that emphasises accountability to stakeholders and involves partners and beneficiaries intimately in the evaluation process.