Conflict sensitivity/Do No Harm (DNH) in development, humanitarian, and peacebuilding practice – reflections and emerging trends [special issue editorial]

This special issue focuses on the understanding and application of two closely related concepts, “do no harm” (DNH) and “conflict sensitivity”, and their critical engagement in the academic literature. Mary Anderson published her seminal book Do No Harm: How aid can support peace – or war in 1999, which popularised the idea of conflict sensitivity in development, humanitarian, and peacebuilding practice. Since then, many models and tools have been published and considerable efforts have been made to mainstream conflict-sensitive practice. This is evidenced, for example, by the growing number of conflict advisors or specialists, the development of a Global Conflict Sensitivity Community Hub (CSC-Hub),¹ country-specific mechanisms and resource facilities (e.g. in Libya, Lebanon, South Sudan, and Yemen; see CSC-Hub 2021), and a proliferation of manuals, with many non-government organisations (NGOs) and UN agencies developing their own. However, two and a half decades later, despite considerable efforts, the application of conflict sensitivity/DNH has been uneven at best, and its impact marginal, with some recent high profile “failures” such as the return of the Taliban in Afghanistan in August 2021 and the civil war in Sudan that erupted in April 2023. There is still little evidence that the tools have been consistently applied to produce tangibly improved, sustainable results. There has also been limited updating in the academic literature, which also warrants further exploration.

These are the questions that motivated us, as three guest editors, to devote a special issue of Development in Practice (DIP) to exploring the extent of implementation and success of conflict sensitivity/DNH. We are interested in the extent to which conflict sensitivity/DNH has contributed to addressing the challenges posed by the increase in protracted conflicts and humanitarian crises, new drivers of conflict, and humanitarian needs such as climate change, and the rise of populism and authoritarianism. All three of us are academic practitioners with a long history of engagement with the approach, integrating it into our teaching and research, and contributing to the learning and development of the concepts.

DiP is a perfect outlet for exploring conflict sensitivity/DNH as an approach that sits at the intersection of theory and practice. Several previous issues of DiP and individual contributions to the journal are relevant to the debate. For example, Wallace (2002) discussed the learning process of the Local Capacities for Peace project on which the DNH concept is based. Lessons from this project in Sudan had been reflected upon by Riak (2000) two years earlier, and Bonzi (2006) considered the role of the water sector, which she felt had been left out of Anderson’s (1999) work. Similarly, the editorial of the 2005 special issue on the debates surrounding the role of the private sector in the development process framed the discussion in terms of “doing less harm” versus “doing more good” (Sayer 2005). This special issue builds on these foundations and includes eight research papers (Cabello and Alberti 2023; Darwish, Allen, and Moriarty 2023; Ernstorfer, Stockman, and de Weijer 2023; McCants-Turner and Garred 2023; Paudel, Subedi, and Winterford 2023; Risheq et al. 2023; Tschunkert and Vogel 2023; Ware 2023), three practice notes (Bentele and Herzog 2023; Haines and Buchanan 2023; O’Brien, Naw (Laser), and Mon 2023), and two viewpoint articles (Anderson 2023; Midgley et al. 2023) that examine the conflict sensitivity/DNH from different perspectives, both academic and applied.

Conflict sensitivity/DNH – what’s in thy name?

Mary Anderson (1999), the godmother of DNH, argues that aid can either support peace or contribute to conflict, depending on how it is delivered. Her key argument is that development and humanitarian interventions always have an impact on conflict dynamics, so interventions must be designed and implemented with a deep understanding of the conflict dynamics in the specific context in which they are implemented. The terms conflict sensitivity and DNH are often used interchangeably, but DNH is widely seen as the minimum standard: to avoid causing unintended harm (Hoffman 2004; Paffenholz 2005).

Conflict sensitivity goes further and seeks to provide actors with the necessary framework and tools to analyse the conflict in which they are working, to identify potential risks and opportunities for conflict prevention, peacebuilding, and conflict resolution. Conflict sensitivity considers how project design and implementation can not only avoid aggravating conflict but can also have a positive impact on conflict dynamics. Conflict sensitivity can thus be seen as a comprehensive approach to aid programming that combines practical guidance, tools, and strategies for designing and implementing aid and development programs in conflict-affected and fragile contexts.

There is some disagreement as to whether conflict sensitivity/DNH is an analytical or a decision-making tool. We would argue that it is both, because ultimately every aid intervention is based on a series of decisions, and conflict sensitivity/DNH provides analytical tools that make such decisions transparent and encourage reflection on the dilemmas and trade-offs in everyday action.

Based on the medical profession’s Hippocratic Oath (primum non nocere – “first, do no harm”), conflict sensitivity also serves as an ethical and accountability framework that helps ask critical questions to improve effective and responsible programming in conflict-affected contexts. The emphasis is primarily on minimising negative impacts in conflict-affected contexts, including the potential harm of inaction and the ethical underpinnings of promoting positive peace and ultimately addressing the root causes of conflict. This was elaborated in the Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief (ICRC 1994).

More than two decades after it first emerged as a radical idea, the notion that aid interventions designed to “do good” can exacerbate tensions and create new ones has become mainstream. From this perspective, conflict sensitivity/DNH is a success story that is recognised as a good practice to which all actors in the development, humanitarian and peacebuilding fields should adhere. Conflict sensitivity is increasingly being integrated into broader development and humanitarian programming, rather than treated as a separate and specialised approach. This includes integrating conflict sensitivity considerations into project design, monitoring, and evaluation, and embedding conflict-sensitive practices in organisational policies and procedures. It has also become a donor requirement, and references to both terms can be found in funding applications and agency documents. In addition, the concept of conflict sensitivity has contributed to a wider recognition of the importance of peacebuilding in aid and development, resulting in increased resources and attention being devoted to this area.

The success of DNH may be due to its relative simplicity and accessibility – after all, who wants to “do harm”? However, conflict sensitivity/DNH practitioners and researchers were also quick to emphasise the importance of collaborative and learning practice, leading to the creation of a dedicated research and advisory organisation (CDA Collaborative Learning²) and the development of a community of practice (the CSC-Hub mentioned above³); all of which contributed to the dissemination of the approach.

The donor community was also quick to take note. The Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), for example, warned in its 1997 Guidelines on Conflict, Peace and Development, that socio-economic development could have potentially destabilising effects, and noted that, to be sustainable, it should be “underpinned by institutions capable of managing socio-political tensions and preventing their escalation into violence” (OECD-DAC 1997, 9). This was followed more than a decade later by a longer publication (OECD 2010). Most major donors have since published their own guidelines or manuals (e.g. DFID, GIZ, USAID) or funded those developed by NGOs (see Haider 2014), many of which are part of the CSC-Hub with its own “how to guide” (Conflict Sensitivity Consortium 2012). A pioneer was the Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC), which developed a Conflict Analysis Toolkit in 2005, followed a year later by a strategy for “mainstreaming conflict sensitivity and violence prevention into SDC programmes” (SDC 2006). More recent manuals have been developed by and for United Nations agencies (e.g. UN 2022; UNDP 2019; UNICEF 2016). Perhaps this is why academic uptake has been more limited, because conflict sensitivity/DNH has by and large been aimed at the practitioner and policy world rather than at academic inquiry.

Conflict sensitivity/DNH: mainstreaming success or Buzzword?

There is the question whether increased visibility, or in essence, mainstreaming of conflict sensitivity/DNH is the best measure of success. Perhaps it has simply joined the long list of buzzwords that have become part of the jargon of development, humanitarian, and peacebuilding professionals, “sprinkled liberally in funding proposals and emblazoned on websites and promotional material” (Cornwall 2007, 471). The proliferation and problem of buzzwords in global development was first discussed in a special issue of DiP edited by Deborah Eade in 2007. Although conflict sensitivity had not yet entered the lexicon at the time, the contribution by Denskus (2007) deconstructed the related concept of peacebuilding.

Conflict sensitivity/DNH may thus have suffered from similar problems that have long plagued other important development agendas, such as women’s empowerment, where the simplistic “add women and stir” approach (including women in projects and programs) has been conflated with the achievement of gender equality (Mohanty 2003; Tadros 2010). This dilution of gender mainstreaming may have done more harm than good in advancing critical feminist and gender perspectives, undermining efforts to fundamentally transform underlying power dynamics and inequalities (Mukhopadhyay 2006, 2014; Meier 2017).

Indeed, some have warned that mainstreaming conflict sensitivity has led to its dilution and oversimplification, including Midgley et al. (2023) in this issue, who argue that it is sometimes used as a mere box-ticking exercise rather than a genuine effort to address conflict dynamics. Similarly, the World Food Programme’s recent evaluation of its role in peacebuilding and transition acknowledges that sound policy does not necessarily translate into good practice, and highlights that there are still gaps in applying a conflict-sensitive approach to programming (WFP 2023, 2). It is therefore important to recognise that conflict sensitivity is not a guarantee against harm or conflict escalation. Rather, it is a tool and approach that seeks to mitigate negative impacts and promote positive peace. In contexts where conflict is deeply entrenched and complex, conflict sensitivity may have significant limitations.

Part of the problem may be that conflict-sensitive programming requires specialised skills and knowledge that are not always available within aid and development organisations, which is one reason why specialised resource facilities and mechanisms have developed to fill this gap (CSC-Hub 2021). Other times it is more a question of finding the time to carry out the necessary analysis, especially the interaction or critical detail analysis of how an aid intervention interacts with the conflict context, which is perhaps the most time-consuming and therefore least practised aspect of conflict sensitivity. This may be one explanation for the failure of conflict sensitivity to prevent unintended negative consequences in development, humanitarian, and peacebuilding practice, despite improved understanding of contexts. There is also the problem that humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding organisations continue to work in silos, which can lead to fragmentation and duplication of efforts and limit the effectiveness of conflict-sensitive programming.

The buzzword of DNH has also crept into academic publications that aim to assess whether something or someone is “doing harm” without necessarily linking their analysis back to the actual concept of DNH (e.g. Barber and Bowie 2008 for NGOs; and Sayer 2005 for the private sector in development). This was certainly an issue for this special issue with several papers rejected on the basis that simply dropping the words DNH or conflict sensitivity into the text, without applying or linking to the frameworks and literature, was not enough to warrant inclusion.

Conflict sensitivity/DNH and similar approaches: competing or complementary?

Since Mary Anderson proposed the DNH framework, many alternative frameworks and conceptualisations have been proposed. Some, such as the Peace and Conflict Impact Assessment (PCIA) methodology (Bush 1998), have been developed in parallel and, like conflict sensitivity, are seen as an umbrella for other similar approaches. Approaches that have emerged from peacebuilding rather than development or humanitarian practice have tended to be informed by early peacebuilding theories (see Galtung 1996; Lederach 1995, 1997).

This includes approaches such as Aid for Peace, thinking and working politically (TWP), Doing Development Differently (DDD), Problem-Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA), and systems thinking (Booth and Unsworth 2014; Goodhand 2002, 2006; Laws and Marquette 2018; Paffenholz 2005, 2021; Paffenholz and Reychler 2005, 2007; Ramalingam 2013; Ricigliano 2012). Many of these approaches developed in parallel of each other and are collaborative projects between scholars and practitioners from across the humanitarian, development and peacebuilding spectrum. Several are drawn upon in the contributions to this special issue, particularly systems thinking (Ernstorfer, Stockman, and de Weijer 2023; Darwish, Allen, and Moriarty 2023), TWP (Cabello and Alberti 2023), and adaptive approaches (O’Brien, Naw (Laser), and Mon 2023).

What all these approaches share with conflict sensitivity/DNH is the importance of understanding the local contexts, local ownership, and participation, and the need for better tools to measure the impact of external development, peacebuilding, and development interventions (McCulloch and Piron 2019). They also urge international actors “to think and act beyond narrow, technical mandates” (Hoffman 2004, 2) and to consider “the fluidity, complexity and interconnectedness” of any given context and intervention (Hoffman 2004, 2, 6), most importantly “the central role of politics in development” (Booth and Unsworth 2014, p.1; see also Carothers and de Gramont 2013). Together with conflict sensitivity, these approaches thus aim to change not only how we think about international development, humanitarian action, and/or peacebuilding, but also how we should work differently and smarter to achieve it (Rocha Menocal 2014; Booth and Unsworth 2014). Similar to conflict sensitivity, TWP⁴ has developed its own community of practice and DDD has issued its own manifesto with 40 signatories.⁵

However, these new approaches also aim to address some of the criticisms levelled against conflict/sensitivity and DNH, such as insufficient attention to the power dynamics underlying conflicts and neglect of the overarching political economy context; a tendency towards short-termism (although this is perhaps more a problem of aid and development programs than of conflict sensitivity and DNH), which can make it difficult to address the root causes of conflict and promote sustainable peace.

First, while early iterations of conflict sensitivity focused primarily on harm and conflict reduction, more recent approaches have emphasised a shift towards the promotion of positive peace, which is the focus of the contributions of Ware (2023) and Ernstorfer, Stockman, and de Weijer (2023) in this special issue, but also highlighted by Haines and Buchanan (2023) and O’Brien, Naw (Laser), and Mon (2023). This involves not only addressing the immediate causes of conflict, but also tackling underlying structural inequalities and building more resilient and inclusive societies (Risheq et al. 2023; Tschunkert and Vogel 2023). Ernstorfer, Stockman, and de Weijer (2023), for example, present their holistic Interpeace “Peace Responsiveness approach”, which is informed by a systems and multi-scalar perspectives. Ware (2023) argues for the integration of conflict sensitivity with the everyday peace indicators developed by Pamina Firchow and Roger Mac Ginty (2017; see also Firchow 2018; Mac Ginty 2021). Both articles focus on better linking conflict sensitivity – originally developed for harm reduction in development and humanitarian contexts – with critical peace studies or emphasising the “local capacity for the peace aspect” of DNH, which Ware (2023) argues is less developed.

Second, many approaches, including conflict sensitivity, emphasise the importance of understanding power dynamics and power imbalances in shaping the outcomes of humanitarian aid, development, and peacebuilding programs. In this special issue, Haines and Buchanan (2023) explore this for the localisation discourse in Myanmar, and Paudel, Subedi, and Winterford (2023) introduce the concept of “conflict denialism”, whereby local political actors in nominally “post-conflict” contexts undermine or prevent conflict sensitivity by exercising their power to selectively choose to deny the continued existence of conflict or to talk up the risk of a return to violence in order to further their pursuit of power. One of the strongest critiques is that of Risheq et al. (2023), who argue that humanitarian and development actors in the West Bank have ignored key insights that conflict sensitivity would offer by failing to address existing drivers of conflict and thus harming Palestinians. The authors link conflict sensitivity to decolonial thinking, arguing that the insistence on depoliticising aid has indirectly legitimised Israeli settler colonialism and its investment in the capacity to wage war.

Some would argue that the DNH approach is less explicit about power than others (Ware and Laoutides 2021), with a political economy analysis being the strength of approaches such as TWP and DDD (McCulloch and Piron 2019). This is also argued by Cabello and Alberti (2023) in their contribution, which demonstrates the importance of political economy analysis through a case study of the reform of the Port of Freetown showcasing how PEA could be a powerful tool to inform conflict sensitive programming.

Third, there is also a need to work towards more equitable partnerships between aid actors, local authorities and local communities. This would also ensure the participation and empowerment of women and marginalised groups in peacebuilding processes, address gender-based violence as a driver of conflict and integrate gender into conflict sensitivity (cfd 2004; Garred et al. 2018). In this special issue, O’Brien, Naw (Laser), and Mon (2023) explore the importance of equitable partnerships for an indigenous-led consortium promoting durable solutions for internally displaced people in Myanmar, and Bentele and Herzog (2023) call for more ethical research practices that prioritise collaborative research partnerships and knowledge production.

Despite the recognition of the importance of local ownership in aid and development programming, and more generally the call for increased localisation, there is still a tendency for external actors to dominate decision-making processes, as highlighted in the contributions by Midgley et al. (2023), Haines and Buchanan (2023), and Risheq et al. (2023). Ware (2023) introduces the need for participatory approaches through the integration of the Local Peace Indicators and O’Brien, Naw (Laser), and Mon (2023) stress participatory approaches to monitoring and evaluation and building learning and feedback loops into program design. O’Brien, Naw (Laser), and Mon (2023) specifically explore how an indigenous-led consortium of national and international organisations has mainstreamed conflict sensitivity into its triple nexus programming, with particular focus on promoting durable solutions for internally displaced people, and how the consortium leverages partnerships to ensure conflict-sensitive programming.

Fourth, many of the next generation conflict-sensitivity inspired approaches emphasise the importance of adaptive programming and complexity-informed thinking as a way of embracing dynamic situations, non-linear progress, and the inherent messiness in achieving positive outcomes in unpredictable and changing contexts (e.g. Algoso 2017; Björkdahl et al. 2016; de Coning 2018, 2020; de Coning, Saraiva, and Muto 2023; Hunt 2015; Körppen, Ropers, and Giessmann 2011; Paananen 2021; Paffenholz 2021; Randazzo and Torrent 2021; Wild et al. 2015). This is also emphasised by the contribution by Ernstorfer, Stockman, and de Weijer (2023) and Darwish, Allen, and Moriarty (2023) in this special issue.

Most adaptive programming approaches also emphasise the importance of taking a longer-term view, addressing the inherent short-termism of many development and peacebuilding programs, but especially in humanitarian action (see Risheq et al. 2023; Tschunkert and Vogel 2023 in this special issue). This recognises that outcomes driven primarily by long-term political and social dynamics are difficult to predict, and therefore require more patient and adaptive programming. Tschunkert and Vogel (2023), for example, demonstrate the unintended harm of humanitarian cash programs and how conflict-sensitive programming can help promote opportunities for peace and distribute economic benefits more evenly among beneficiaries.

Despite some of these differences, there are enough similarities between these approaches and conflict sensitivity/DNH to make them in many ways “variations on a theme” (Ware and Laoutides 2021, 678). There is also clear cross-fertilisation, as all approaches aim to minimise harm and maximise peacebuilding potential, emphasise learning, and provide valuable insights and tools for aid and development programming, and can therefore be complementary in practice.

Perhaps the main difference is that some approaches focus more specifically on development interventions (e.g. conflict sensitivity, TWP, DDD, PDIA), while others are more peacebuilding oriented (e.g. Aid for Peace, perpetual peace), with more recent inroads into humanitarian aid (Algoso 2017; Campbell 2022; Oxfam 2021). This speaks to the pervasive siloing between humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding actors noted earlier, which was also emphasised by contributions to this special issue (e.g. Midgley et al. 2023; O’Brien, Naw (Laser), and Mon 2023). This is where the Triple Nexus debate comes in, with an emphasis on the intersection of the three, although there is still a long way to go in connecting the dots (Caparini and Reagan 2019; OECD 2022) and a major focus of organisations working on conflict sensitivity.

A key gap may be that “in practice, most approaches focus more on problem-solving and avoiding unintended consequences of international interventions than on deliberately contributing to conflict transformation, allowing risk minimisation to overshadow opportunities for enhancing local peacebuilding agency” (Ware and Laoutides 2021, 678). This suggests ample scope for innovation and complementarity, which is what we hoped to achieve with a special issue exploring the legacy and impact of conflict sensitivity/DNH.

Conflict sensitivity – what is next

The editorial sought to highlight the progress that has been made in conflict sensitivity/DNH since Mary Anderson’s pioneering work on Do No Harm in the 1990s, and the other approaches it has inspired or interacted with. The fact that there are still problems in getting conflict sensitivity/DNH “right” is perhaps what motivates scholars and practitioners to continue to improve the approach and its application, and to critically interrogate what works, which is what we hoped to do with this special issue. This was already behind the efforts of Swisspeace and other organisations that led to the publication “Taking Conflict Sensitivity to the Next Level”, and influenced other approaches, as discussed above (Handschin, Abitbol, and Alluri 2016).

The contributions in this special issue have indeed delivered. Some critically reflect on conflict sensitivity/DNH and its application (Anderson 2023; Midgley et al. 2023; O’Brien, Naw (Laser), and Mon 2023; Haines and Buchanan 2023, Risheq et al. 2023; Tschunkert and Vogel 2023) and others explore how aspects could be improved and expanded (Cabello and Alberti 2023; Darwish, Allen, and Moriarty 2023; McCants-Turner and Garred 2023; Paudel, Subedi, and Winterford 2023; Ware 2023), with Ernstorfer, Stockman, and de Weijer (2023) presenting a more peace-focussed approach. McCants-Turner and Garred (2023) highlight the important nexus between conflict sensitivity, personal growth, and spiritual (trans)formation in the lives of faith actors navigating fraught intra- and inter-faith relations, and call for the expansion of research and practitioner resources on how to interweave individual and institutional change in conflict-sensitivity practice. This links to an earlier article in DiP by Nicholas (2014), which presents a framework that reworks Anderson’s DNH approach to make it fit for purpose for use by faith-based development organisations.

In her contribution to this special issue, Mary Anderson (2023) reflects on what DNH has achieved in the more than two decades since she first promoted the idea and returns to the importance of the approach in promoting greater transparency and accountability, requiring organisations to take responsibility for the impact of their programs on conflict dynamics and to be accountable to local communities and other stakeholders for the outcomes of their interventions. This highlights the importance of DNH as a framework for ethics and accountability, which Midgley et al. (2023) suggest is often ignored.

Finally, a new area where conflict sensitivity is being explored is ensuring its integration into climate change adaptation, given the recognised link between climate change and conflict (Nadiruzzaman et al. 2022; Tänzler, Scherer, and Detges 2022). This is also the focus of the contribution by Darwish, Allen, and Moriarty (2023) in this special issue, who argue that there is still an important gap between theory and practice when it comes to using conflict-sensitive approaches in environmental peacebuilding. They acknowledge that to implement conflict-sensitive programming, it is necessary to go beyond traditional conflict analyses and explore the interactions between human and non-human actors, as well as to understand peace as a holistic concept that includes both human and ecological aspects.

Concluding thoughts

The expansion of conflict sensitivity has been driven by the recognition of the importance of peacebuilding and conflict prevention in aid and development programming, as well as a growing understanding of the complex and dynamic nature of conflict dynamics. As the field continues to evolve, it is likely that conflict sensitivity will continue to expand and adapt in response to changing contexts and emerging challenges. The future of conflict sensitivity will depend on the ability of aid and development actors to adapt to changing contexts and new challenges, and to continue to learn and evolve as they work towards the goal of promoting peace and reducing conflict. The contributions to this special issue have shown that the field is evolving and that practitioners, in particular, are striving to critically advance how we can think differently about the delivery of humanitarian, development and peacebuilding programming and avoid “doing harm”. It was emphasised that conflict sensitivity/DNH should aim to promote greater collaboration and coordination between aid actors and encourage more joined-up programming to realise the triple nexus. Perhaps less explored was the role of new technologies, such as social media and mobile phones, in promoting conflict-sensitive programming and how they can be used to empower local communities and promote peace, something the peacebuilding sector has been actively engaged in (see Schirch 2021).

However, one of the editors’ main concerns, the need for critical academic engagement and possibly a research agenda, has not been fully realised. If anything, the limited number of strictly academic contributions to our issue shows that academic engagement is lagging behind debates and adaptations in policy and practice. There is still much research and critique to be done. We hope that this special issue will encourage more academic researchers to engage with conflict sensitivity/DNH and related approaches, so that we can continue this debate in future issues of DiP.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 https://www.conflictsensitivityhub.net/; which emerged from the Conflict Sensitivity Consortium active between 2008 and 2012 and funded by UKAid.

2 https://www.cdacollaborative.org.

3 https://www.conflictsensitivityhub.ne.

4 https://twpcommunity.org/about-us/what-is-twp.

5 The DDD Manifesto – Building State Capability (harvard.edu).