Applying Conflict Sensitivity in Emergency Response: Current Practice and Ways Forward

1. Applying Conflict Sensitivity in Emergency Response: Current Practice and Ways Forward Conflict Sensitivity Consortium ODI Humanitarian Practice Network

2. How conflict-sensitive are emergency responses and humanitarian tools and standards currently? • What practical approaches have been used by aid agencies to better understand their contexts of intervention and minimize conflict risks? • How can we strengthen conflict-sensitive emergency response in the future and to what extent should this be a priority for the sector? Review Objectives

3. Review of sector wide standards including Sphere • Review of emergency manuals and policies of 5 aid agencies • Stakeholder interviews and survey • Field research in 3 countries (Haiti, Pakistan, Sri Lanka) Methodology

4. Conflict sensitivity implies: • Understanding the context in which you operate; • Understanding the interaction between your intervention and the context; • Acting upon the understanding of this interaction, to avoid negative impacts and maximise positive impacts on conflict dynamics. Definition

5. Tools and standards: • SPHERE Charter and Core standards are implicitly CS • Technical standards are varied • Accountability (GEG and HAP) as a vehicle for CS practice • Specific CS guidance exists in agency emergency manuals • Challenge: operationalisation Stakeholders’ views: • CS approaches seen as highly relevant in emergency response • 85% citing examples where emergency responses had caused or worsened conflicts • Many examples of implicitly CS approaches applied • Lack of formal mainstreaming: application of CS is ad hoc and dependent on individuals • Adopt a minimalist approach Existing tools, standards and approaches

6. Overall: • No formal CS approaches in Haiti and Pakistan, but implicitly CS practices • Conflict expertise and conflict analysis formally used in Sri Lanka • Many CS challenges identified in practice, with direct relation to emergency response effectiveness • Common areas of strength and weakness in CS practices Key issues and conflict flashpoints: Understanding the context and the role of local actors; • Targeting; • Power and control over distribution of resources • Participation, transparency, accountability; • Gender relations; • Staffing; • Interagency coordination Case studies

7. Widespread recognition of the need to better integrate CS principles into humanitarian response. • Not starting from scratch, no major extra investment needed: • many existing tools, standards and approaches can be built on; • CS integration can complement ongoing emergency capacity-building initiatives through simple steps. • Improved conflict sensitivity in emergencies will minimise harm and help manage conflict risks, as well as enhance overall quality and effectiveness. Key Conclusions

8. Minimum standards for conflict-sensitive emergency response • Practical pointers to operationalise CS approaches within the humanitarian programme cycle, including Good Enough conflict analysis • Institutionalise agency commitment to CS • At sector level: raise awareness of CS relevance and include principles in joint standards and mechanisms (ex: through clusters; conflict benchmark in IASC RTEs …) Recommendations

9. Preparedness plans include conflict analysis and training for senior and operational staff. • ‘Good Enough’ conflict analysis is included in rapid emergency assessment phase. • Partnership strategy analysed for conflict risks. • All new staff have orientation including humanitarian principles and conflict context. • Participatory methods are used in developing targeting criteria and managing distributions. • Conflict benchmarks are included in evaluations, RTEs and After Action Reviews. Minimum standards for conflict-sensitive emergency response