Presentation on theme: "Applying Conflict Sensitivity in Emergency Response: Current Practice and Ways Forward Conflict Sensitivity Consortium ODI Humanitarian Practice Network."— Presentation transcript:
Applying Conflict Sensitivity in Emergency Response: Current Practice and Ways Forward Conflict Sensitivity Consortium ODI Humanitarian Practice Network
Review Objectives 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?
Methodology 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)
Definition 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.
Existing tools, standards and approaches 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
Case studies 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
Key Conclusions 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.
Recommendations 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 …)
Minimum standards for conflict- sensitive emergency response 1.Preparedness plans include conflict analysis and training for senior and operational staff. 2.‘Good Enough’ conflict analysis is included in rapid emergency assessment phase. 3.Partnership strategy analysed for conflict risks. 4.All new staff have orientation including humanitarian principles and conflict context. 5.Participatory methods are used in developing targeting criteria and managing distributions. 6.Conflict benchmarks are included in evaluations, RTEs and After Action Reviews.