25 years of conflict sensitivity: time for structural change in a dysfunctional aid system

For those of us who live through conflict, we know that any form of engagement, humanitarian, developmental or otherwise, is political – even if it claims not to be so (Sherine El Taraboulsi-McCarthy)

The relatively rapid and generous international assistance to people in Ukraine following the Russian invasion, while necessary, has shown that the political, cultural and ethnic proximity of Ukrainians to the West seems to count for more in our aid system than a neutral assessment of humanitarian needs.

A 2022 UN flash appeal for humanitarian support in Ukraine has already managed to fund 68.2 per cent of the target of USD$1.14 billion, whereas only 2.1 per cent of the UN's humanitarian response plan for Yemen is funded. It's easy to sympathise with Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, head of the World Health Organization, when he wondered "if the world really gives equal attention to black and white lives".

This favouritism poses important questions about the role and usefulness of conflict sensitivity for the aid sector. Could a stronger awareness of our own incentives, our role and impact as international players in conflict-affected contexts help us become more equitable and fairer globally? The answer is yes. In our recent paper, we point out that a fundamental re-evaluation of conflict sensitivity is in order and that we should pay attention to our actions and their impact, and the incentives that drive our own behaviour as 'international actors'. Conflict sensitivity is, fundamentally, a state of mind. It is a set of guiding principles that should lead us to critically reflect on who we are in any given context, to ask ourselves who really benefits from our presence, and to consider whether the practices we employ genuinely incentivise the kinds of change we want to see.

There are a number of tensions that stop international assistance from achieving its aims, reinforcing pre-existing inequalities instead. For more than a decade, international organisations have championed localisation but despite that, there is still deep scepticism about 'local' agency. My interviews with people working in national and international humanitarian and development organisations show distrust towards one another. In communities, people have lost faith in 'international' organisations actually listening to their needs or prioritising them. These organisations are also not trusting the people to lead action due to fears that they are 'politically biased' or are a security threat. I call this 'false localisation'.

Another tension is around politics. For those of us who live through and experience conflict, we know that any form of engagement, humanitarian, developmental or otherwise, is political – even if it claims not to be so. In a political conflict, all actions are directly or indirectly political. We know that the principles of neutrality and impartiality are difficult to achieve and yet we hang onto them. Conflict sensitivity can help us bring more nuance to discussions around accountability and effectiveness alongside people affected by conflict. It can also generate more honesty about the successes and failures of international engagement in conflict-affected contexts. I hope our paper allows for the right level of disruption needed to transform the international aid system.

Sherine El Taraboulsi-McCarthy, PhD is Director of NatCen International, a global social policy centre at the National Center for Social Research in London. She is also a Politics Visiting Fellow at Keble College, University of Oxford. 

Is conflict sensitivity doing no harm? Challenging the incentives that hold us back (Tim Midgley)

Perhaps the most frustrating thing about conflict sensitivity is that even though pretty much everyone in the aid sector seems to agree on its principles, we still cannot seem to put it into practice.

This isn't due to a lack of evidence. We already know for example that to work well in conflict situations, aid needs to be driven by people's priorities, to empower communities (not just governments), and to be adaptive and responsive to changes in the context. The implications are clear and often reflected in donor strategies, programming frameworks and project designs.

What is really holding us back is the incentives driving the behaviour of the most powerful players in the aid sector. While more aid is being spent in riskier environments, the fear of attracting negative headlines from mistakes drives us to centralise control and push risks downstream onto partners. At the same time, commitments to transparency and accountability, while guaranteeing 'value for money', often manifest as formulaic programme designs, burdensome reporting requirements and rigid monitoring and evaluation systems. Risk aversion wins over flexibility and creativity. This constrains NGOs, making them reliant on the few Western organisations able to administer large donor projects in return for a sizable management fee.

Yet the same sense of caution is less evident in other forms of foreign assistance. In the Sahel, for example, many Western governments provide security assistance to the armed forces of autocratic and predatory states, with few genuine incentives to address the corrosive effects that this can have on inclusive and democratic governance. Consequently, security and developmental assistance end up working at cross-purposes.

As advocates of conflict sensitivity, too often we get stuck diagnosing the problems in the places where aid is delivered. But without a greater focus on the fundamental contradictions within the international system itself, conflict sensitivity risks becoming just another buzzword, helping uphold rather than challenge a system that disempowers the very people we are meant to be supporting.

In which case, is it reasonable to ask, is conflict sensitivity really doing no harm?

Tim Midgley is an independent peacebuilding consultant, a Senior Associate with Saferworld and an Associate Consultant with PeaceNexus. For much of the last 10 years he has focused on supporting the integration of conflict- and gender-sensitive approaches into international humanitarian, development, peacebuilding and commercial efforts. 

Conflict sensitivity must challenge the inequalities and biases at the root of the aid sector (Rahma Ahmed)

Over the decades that I've been working in the aid sector, some progress has been made including an increasing recognition globally of the importance of localisation. But distrust and inequalities between Western organisations and experts, and those from places affected by conflict (including those with considerable decision-making authority), have grown.  

Conflict sensitivity has given us a useful lens through which we can look at and learn from international assistance in places affected by conflict. But is it still fit for purpose? To me, it increasingly seems that when we talk about conflict sensitivity, we are focusing on minor tweaks to programming modalities, results frameworks and training modules. But this ignores the elephant in the room: the fundamental political problems and inequalities that prevent aid donors and recipients from deepening their understanding, learning from each other, and appropriately responding to the needs of each context.

Discriminatory structures and beliefs help exclude and disempower many organisations and individuals, preventing equitable aid partnerships to form. Problematic assumptions that national or community-based organisations are inherently biased or lack capacity continue to uphold these inequalities. Yet rather than highlight and disrupt these trends, there is a growing concern that conflict sensitivity may replicate or perpetuate some of them by ignoring or exploiting grassroot expertise, duplicating rather than sharing analysis, and allowing donors' political interests and risk aversion to set the agenda unchallenged.

 
Members of the aid sector must confront the challenges presented in this paper including the far-reaching impact of the inequality at the core of the aid sector. Honest self-reflection will lead to an obvious answer: we simply cannot afford for conflict sensitivity to remain a tick-box activity.

Rahma Ahmed is the Managing Director for Asal Consulting, founded in 2015 and established as a values-driven company with a focus on creating meaningful impact and providing a platform for the best of Somali talent to channel their skills and energy towards creating a better Somalia. 

The conflict sensitivity 'sector' is lucrative, strategic and exclusive. To transform the aid system, it must practice what it preaches, and promote local leadership and expertise (Alastair Carr)

Initially, I was drawn to this project by my discomfort with many of the conversations I have been part of while working primarily to help donors, INGOs and international financial institutions work better in places affected by conflict. I was struck by the widespread distrust of 'local' organisations and experts and the huge pay disparities between them and the Western experts who dominate the field.

I was also frustrated by long, dull discussions obsessing over tweaks to programming modalities, results frameworks and training modules while ignoring the fundamental political problems that prevent aid agencies understanding, learning from and responding to the needs of the contexts they work in. Instead, I worry that some work on conflict sensitivity replicates or even perpetuates some of these issues, ignoring or exploiting local expertise, duplicating rather than sharing analysis and allowing donors' political interests and risk aversion to set the agenda unchallenged.

In our paper, we advocate that conflict sensitivity be practiced less as a technical, box-ticking exercise, and more as a political effort to address the structural inequalities, which permeate the aid system. This idea is hardly new. One peer reviewer told me that reading the paper was like going “back to the future”. Yet at a time where the capacity and moral foundation of the aid system are being questioned more than ever, the practice of conflict sensitivity must become more radical and ambitious to remain useful.  

Alastair Carr is a Programmes and Policy Coordinator at Saferworld in London. Working within the Conflict Advisory Unit, he helps coordinate Saferworld's conflict sensitivity helpdesk for Sida while supporting the activities of conflict sensitivity facilities in Sudan and South Sudan.