There has been growing recognition of the interconnected nature of risks associated with natural disasters, conflict and insecurity, and extreme poverty. Donors engaging in humanitarian and development work increasingly emphasise the need to enhance the resilience of communities and livelihoods in order to address fragility, poverty and vulnerability to conflict and disaster. This underscores the importance of conflict sensitivity in the humanitarian sector. At the same time, however, some argue that the maximalist approach to conflict sensitivity, which aims to address root causes of conflict, is inconsistent with humanitarian principles of neutrality and impartiality.
Most humanitarian agencies adhere to humanitarian codes and guidelines, the most influential being the Sphere Humanitarian Charter and Standards. Although the term ‘conflict sensitive’ does not appear in Sphere, it recognises that ‘attempts to provide humanitarian assistance may sometimes have unintended adverse effects’, and that organisations following the Charter must ‘aim to minimise any negative effects of humanitarian action on the local community or on the environment’. In addition, Wingender (2013) finds that the indicators incorporated in Sphere are largely conflict sensitive. Zicherman et al. (2011) outline six minimum standards to help improve the conflict sensitivity of humanitarian interventions:
- Long-term emergency preparedness plans incorporate regularly updated conflict analysis and conflict sensitivity staff training.
- The rapid emergency phase includes a ‘good enough’ conflict analysis.
- The identification and selection of partners are analysed in relation to potential conflict risk.
- All new staff are briefed on the conflict context.
- Participatory methods are used to foster community engagement in developing targeting criteria, managing distributions and conducting monitoring and evaluation.
- Conflict benchmarks are included in evaluations and reviews.
Designing conflict sensitive interventions in Pakistan’s flood-affected communities
Interaction between the impacts of the 2010 floods in Pakistan and pre-existing social conflicts resulted in the risk of violence. In order to foster conflict sensitive relief and reconstruction interventions and promote conflict prevention, Arai (2012) recommends: prioritising the most vulnerable; establishing strategic partnerships between local and international relief organisations that monitor and prevent the political exploitation of aid; developing cooperatives to facilitate inclusive and equitable processes; promoting employment and other means of supplementary income; understanding resilience in tribal societies and fostering culturally appropriate and participatory ways to restore honour and dignity; and facilitating a gender-sensitive process of psycho-social healing that builds on local capacities.
Key texts
Wingender, L. M. (2013). Humanitarian response in violent conflict: A toolbox of conflict sensitive indicators. Baltimore, MD: Catholic Relief Services
See full text
Zicherman, N., Khan, A., Street, A., Heyer, H., & Chevreau, O. (2011). Applying conflict sensitivity in emergency response: Current practice and ways forward (Humanitarian Practice Network, Paper 70). London: Overseas Development Institute.
See full text
Case studies
Arai, T. (2012). Rebuilding Pakistan in the aftermath of the floods: Disaster relief as conflict prevention. Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, 7(1), 51-65. doi: 10.1080/15423166.2012.719331
See full text
Garred, M. (2007). Conflict sensitivity in emergencies: Learning from the Asia tsunami response. Monrovia, CA: World Vision International
See full text
