Conflict-Sensitive Programming Lab

Understanding Conflict Sensitivity

Conflict sensitivity means understanding how your intervention interacts with the conflict context — and designing to minimise harm and maximise peace.

The core idea: When an intervention enters a context, it becomes part of that context. Every context has dividers (things that pull groups apart) and connectors (things that hold them together). Any programme makes both better or worse — never neutral.

The Do No Harm Framework

The Do No Harm (DNH) framework was developed by Mary B. Anderson and colleagues at the CDA Collaborative Learning Projects, set out in her 1999 book Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace — Or War. It highlights how the details of an intervention — especially resource transfers and staff conduct — send signals that can worsen or ease conflict.

Resource Transfers

When you give resources (money, food, jobs, services), you affect the local economy and the balance of power. Who gets what? Who is left out? How does it change relationships between groups?

Implicit Ethical Messages

Your actions signal values. Hiring from only one community can signal "they matter more." Building a school in one village but not another can be read as favouritism, whatever the intent.

Introduction of New Ideas

Training on human rights, gender equality, or democratic participation can challenge local power structures. This can be positive — or it can trigger backlash. Sequencing and consent matter.

The flip side: supporting connectors

The same levers can build peace. Transparent, inclusive resource transfers; hiring across groups; and carefully sequenced ideas can strengthen the connectors that already hold a community together.

Conflict-affected contexts in South Asia

These brief, neutral sketches show the range of contexts practitioners work in. They are starting points for analysis, not comprehensive accounts, and each situation continues to evolve.

Jammu & Kashmir (India)

A long-running insurgency and heavy security presence. Recent years have seen lower overall violence but continued unrest and displacement; development work operates under tight security conditions.

Northeast India

Multiple ethnic movements, parts under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), and contested resource use. The region is highly diverse; Manipur has seen renewed inter-community violence since 2023.

Sri Lanka (North & East)

Post-war recovery since 2009, with continued militarisation, unresolved land claims, and slow progress on transitional justice and reconciliation between communities.

Pakistan (KP & Balochistan)

Militancy, periodic displacement, and long-standing grievances over resources and representation. Humanitarian and development access is often constrained by security.

Bangladesh (Chittagong Hill Tracts)

Indigenous (Jumma) rights, a military presence, and disputes over land between settlers and indigenous communities. The 1997 CHT Peace Accord remains largely unimplemented.

Nepal (Terai / post-conflict)

A post-2006 transition, ongoing Madhesi grievances, debates over federalism, and high youth unemployment amid recurring political instability.

Conflict Analysis

Before designing any intervention, understand the conflict landscape. Who are the actors? What are their interests? What are the drivers?

The conflict triangle

Actors

Who is involved? State, non-state and armed groups, civil society, diaspora, external actors.

Causes

Proximate vs structural. Greed vs grievance. Identity, resources, power, security.

Dynamics

Escalation, de-escalation, spoilers, triggers, windows of opportunity.

Interactive: analyse a conflict Illustrative scenario

Scenario: You are planning a livelihood programme in a district where two communities (Community A and Community B) have a history of violent clashes over land and water access. This is a teaching scenario — the communities are hypothetical.

Key actors

Community A (majority, controls local politics)
Community B (minority, displaced from some villages)
Local police (perceived as biased toward A)
State government (distant, rarely intervenes)
Local NGO (run by Community A members)
Youth groups (increasingly militant on both sides)

Conflict drivers

Land encroachment
Control of water sources
Unemployment among youth
Political mobilisation of ethnic identity
Historical grievances (past displacement)
Availability of arms

Peace factors

Inter-marriage (declining but present)
Shared religious sites
Joint market (though segregating)
Elder councils that mediate disputes
Women's cross-community networks
Mixed youth sports teams

Which factors should most influence your programme design? Select all that apply:

Do No Harm in Practice

Even well-intentioned programmes can worsen conflict. Work through these teaching scenarios and choose the most conflict-sensitive response.

Illustrative These scenarios and communities are hypothetical, built to practise judgement — not descriptions of any real place.

Scenario 1: hiring field staff

Your NGO needs to hire 20 field staff. The local job market is dominated by Community A. If you hire proportionally, Community B is underrepresented. If you mandate quotas, Community A may claim reverse discrimination. What do you do?

Scenario 2: school location

You are building a school. Community A wants it in their village; Community B wants it in theirs. The "neutral" location is equidistant but requires children to cross a disputed boundary. Where do you build?

Scenario 3: trauma disclosure

During a women's health programme, participants begin sharing experiences of sexual violence during the conflict. You have no counselling capacity and no referral system. The stories are distressing for tellers and listeners alike. What do you do?

Peacebuilding Monitoring & Evaluation

Measuring peace is harder than measuring outputs — but it is essential for learning and accountability.

Four families of peacebuilding indicators

Relationship indicators

Cross-community meetings held
Inter-marriage rates
Joint business ventures
Social-network overlap

Security indicators

Incidents of violence
Displacement rates
Property destruction
Human-rights violations

Political indicators

Inclusive governance structures
Representation in local bodies
Policy changes
Justice mechanisms

Attitude indicators

Trust surveys
Prejudice measures
Willingness to interact
Narrative change in media

Interactive: design peacebuilding M&E Illustrative

Your programme brings youth from conflicting communities together for vocational training. Select appropriate indicators:

Critical warning: Peacebuilding M&E can itself do harm. Collecting data on ethnic tensions may create records that are later misused. Asking about trauma without support can re-traumatise. Always ask: does our M&E process itself do harm?

Adaptive Management in Conflict Contexts

Conflict contexts change rapidly. Your programme must sense, adapt, and respond — sometimes in hours, not months.

The adaptive-management cycle

SENSE

Real-time conflict monitoring. Community feedback. Security updates.

INTERPRET

What does this mean for the programme? Is it safe to continue? What must change?

DECIDE

Adapt, suspend, pivot, or exit. Who decides? How fast?

ACT

Implement the adaptation. Communicate clearly. Document.

LEARN

What worked? What did not? Update protocols. Share.

Red lines: when to suspend or exit

Staff safety compromised

Direct threats to staff. Kidnapping risk. Active combat in the programme area.

Programme fuels conflict

Clear evidence the programme is being used to mobilise violence, recruit fighters, or justify attacks.

Community rejection

Communities explicitly ask you to leave. Continuing against their will destroys trust and endangers everyone.

Legal or regulatory order

A lawful suspension order, or registration/authorisation revoked. Operating illegally harms the whole sector.

Interactive: adapt, suspend, or exit? Illustrative

For each situation, decide the appropriate response:

Case Study: Designing a Conflict-Sensitive Programme

Put it together. Design a conflict-sensitive education programme for a mixed-community district with a history of violence.

Illustrative context This district and its figures are hypothetical, built for practice.

The context

District is roughly 60% Community A, 35% Community B, 5% others
Last major violence: about 8 years ago (many killed, many displaced)
Schools are segregated by community (de facto, not official)
Teachers are almost all from Community A
Community B children have markedly lower literacy rates
Youth unemployment is high — a major conflict driver
Local politicians mobilise ethnic identity for votes
Women from both communities have expressed interest in joint activities

Design your programme

Select all elements that would make this programme conflict-sensitive:

Lab complete

You can now analyse conflict contexts, apply Do No Harm principles, and design adaptive programmes for fragile settings.

Conflict sensitivity starts with understanding the context — its dividers and connectors
Resource transfers, implicit messages, and new ideas can all do harm
Conflict analysis must examine actors, causes, and dynamics
Peacebuilding M&E is possible but requires care — measure relationships, not just outputs
Adaptive management is essential in volatile contexts
Know your red lines — when to suspend or exit
Design for inclusion, not just neutrality

Conflict Sensitivity Do No Harm Peacebuilding South Asia

Go deeper: Mary B. Anderson, Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace — Or War (CDA Collaborative Learning Projects, 1999); the From Principle to Practice user's guide to Do No Harm; and the Conflict Sensitivity Consortium guidelines.

Recommended next steps

Try the Stakeholder Mapping Lab → Explore more on ImpactMojo