Ward Model

58

implemen-59

tation, monitoring and evaluation are linked (Barbolet, Goldwyn, Groenewald, &

Sheriff, 2005).

Conflict-sensitive planning is integrating conflict analysis of the actors, causes, profile and dynamics in a given context —with the aim of ensuring that the project or programme does not inadvertently increase the likelihood of violent conflict, but rather serves to reduce potential or existing violent conflict. It is required in contexts charac-terised by conflicts along the conflict spectrum (from structural violence to violent conflict). It is applicable whether the project or programme is for humanitarian aid, peacebuilding, or development; or whether the intention is to address conflict directly or simply to avoid indirectly exacerbating tensions. Conflict-sensitive planning can be applied to both interventions that are defined through the conflict analysis, and to sen-sitising pre-defined interventions (Resource Pack, 2004). A conflict-sensitive (inter-vention) planning ‗‗…requires careful and detailed exploration of the potential im-pacts, direct and indirect, (a) of the proposed activities on the actors, causes, profile and dynamics relating to conflict or potential conflict within the context, and (b) of the actors, causes, profile and dynamics on the proposed activities.‘‘ (2004, p. 65). There are five key steps for conflict-sensitive planning: defining intervention objective; de-fining intervention process; developing indicators (conflict indicators, project indica-tors and interaction indicaindica-tors); linking project to scenarios and preparing contingency plans; and designing project conclusion. Some of the challenges of conflict-sensitive planning is likely to encounter are relations with central and local authorities, manag-ing information networks, and relations with donors.

Conflict sensitive implementation, in addition to traditional implementation,

‗‗…involves close scrutiny of the operational context through regularly updating the conflict analysis, linking this understanding of the context to the objective and process of achieving the activities, and adjusting these activities accordingly. It builds on the conflict analysis and planning processes‘‘ (2004, p. 73). Key elements of conflict-sensitive implementation are to:

1. sensitively manage the process of implementation (activities, staffing, informa-tion networks, finances, etc.);

2. regularly monitor the operational context and the interaction between the in-tervention and the context, using the indicators defined in the conflict analysis and planning stages; and

60

3. adjust the project in light of new information gathered through monitoring, fo-cusing particularly on the objectives and process of implementation.

Often, conflict-sensitive implementation work is undertaken at the planning phase and through the conflict analysis. The following key steps build on this prior work and are employed to sensitise the implementation and management process, namely refer back to the conflict analysis; set up the project (prepare and/or assess plans of operation, ne-gotiate project contract issues and sites, coordination, define security procedures); im-plement, monitor and adjust the project (implement and monitor, and adjust to the con-text and the interaction); sensitive project phase out. Challenges conflict-sensitive implementation may encounter include flexibility, learning lessons, and building and maintaining relationships.

Conflict-sensitive monitoring incorporates conflict analyses into traditional monitoring processes and activities, with the intention of gaining a better understand-ing of the context and the intervention as well as their interactions. It informs adjust-ments and changes to project or programme activities so that the intervention has the optimum positive impact on conflict dynamics (Resource Pack, 2004). Conflict-sensitive evaluation integrates a detailed understanding of actors, profile, causes and dynamics into traditional evaluation activities and processes. Thus, it is useful to un-derstand the overall impact a given intervention has had on its context, and the context on the intervention. The evaluation can then be used to adjust subsequent phases of an on-going initiative, and/or provide lessons for future initiatives (Resource Pack, 2004).

Traditional monitoring and evaluation processes follow five key steps, includ-ing decidinclud-ing when to monitor or evaluate; designinclud-ing monitorinclud-ing and evaluation proc-ess; collecting information; analysing information; and recommending and redesign-ing. However, there are four key issues in conflict-sensitive monitoring and evaluation process (2004, p. 86). First, like traditional monitoring and evaluation, conflict-sensitive monitoring, can also be an extractive process (as interviewers take informa-tion from respondents and offer little in direct return), or it can be more transformative (involving respondents in the process of indicator development and analysis, monitors and evaluators can help people understand their own place in – and possibly even their contribution to – a given context) with potentially-positive results, and attending risks.

Second, it involves conflict-sensitising all existing steps in the process, from the design to reporting and beyond. This requires additional resources. For instance, it needs organisational and institutional support for increased staff capacity development.

61

Also, it requires sufficient time to review and adjust existing tools and processes, as well as additional time to monitor or evaluate conflict and interaction indicators. Third, understanding the context as it is expressed at various different geographic scales is fundamental to understanding the context at the level of the intervention. Hence, con-flict-sensitive monitoring and evaluation includes adequate attention to the profile, ac-tors, causes and dynamics that function at micro, meso and macro levels. Finally, con-flict sensitive monitoring and evaluation requires an understanding of success qualita-tively, in terms of impact on peace and conflict dynamics, and not only quantitatively in terms of number of houses built, and participants attending a meeting. This requires an institutional willingness and ability to think differently about how it measures im-pact. A conflict-sensitive organisation will also want to place a high value on its pro-jects‘ interactions with the contexts (2004, pp. 86-87).

The CSA has a number of strong points as a process for conflict-sensitising proposed and measuring the impact of a completed intervention. For instance, it pro-motes the use of indicators —perception-based and objective indicators— to capture the more intangible impacts of programming. For instance, whether a respondent feels more or less safe (perception-based indicator) compared to the recorded number of in-cidents of violence (objective indicator) (Barbolet, Goldwyn, Groenewald, & Sheriff, 2005). Also, the CSA conceives impacts as results of interactions between stages of intervention and elements of the context.

Also, it includes elaborate procedures for incorporating-conflict analysis into the assessment process. A very strong point to its credit is its flexibility and robustness.

However, for the purpose of this study, the CSA appears to lay too much emphasis on conflict. For instance, the nomenclature conflict sensitivity gives undue recognition to conflict and deemphasises peace. This may be taken as implying a tacit assumption that conflict reduction in context automatically leads to peacebuilding. This is in con-trast to the Do No Harm approach which explicitly recognises the need to simultane-ously work on reducing conflict and strengthening peace to maximise the positive im-pact of intervention in context.