This paper was developed by members of the Conflict Sensitivity Consortium, in the inception phase of the DFID-funded project “Conflict Sensitivity – Concept to Impact”. It sets out the different interpretations of the concept of conflict sensitivity, in order to provoke discussion amongst the consortium members and build consensus. This desk review focuses solely on global strategies and policies; it is the product of discussions amongst all consortium agencies at a February 2009 workshop entitled ‘Defining Conflict Sensitivity’.
In order to inform consortium discussion and consensus building, this paper provides a brief overview of the current field of conflict sensitivity: tracing the history of conflict sensitivity to provide a contextual background for the current state of play. Conflict sensitivity is important to some agencies as a component of peace-building, while others see it as important for poverty reduction, equality and social justice.
Seeking to ground the concept of conflict sensitivity into the mandates of humanitarian, development and peacebuilding agencies, the paper identifies key questions to be addressed in order to develop a consensual definition of conflict sensitivity. There are debates about when and where conflict sensitivity is required; whether conflict sensitivity is a philosophy, approach, tool, or process; what types of work conflict sensitivity should be applied to; and the distinction between conflict sensitivity and peacebuilding.
Key Findings:
The paper identifies two alternative definitions for ‘conflict sensitivity’:
- A conflict sensitive approach involves gaining a sound understanding of the two-way interaction between activities and context and acting to minimise negative impacts and maximise positive impacts of interventions on conflict, within an organisation’s given priorities/objectives (mandate).
- A conflict sensitive approach involves gaining a sound understanding of the two-way interaction between activities and context and acting to minimise negative impacts and maximise positive impacts of interventions on conflict, and actively including peacebuilding as a primary or secondary objective.
What is the difference between the two definitions?
- Definition 1 makes it clear that solely ‘avoiding harm’ is insufficient for conflict sensitivity. Instead organisations need to both minimise negative consequences and maximise positive consequences, within their original mandate/priorities.
- Definition 2 is moving from conflict sensitivity within original mandate/priorities, to adoption of mandates/priorities that are more focused on peacebuilding as a priority, adding objectives focused directly on peacebuilding (reducing violence or underlying causes of violent conflict) as an explicit priority.
