Programming Tool 3

Conflict-Sensitive WASH Programming Tool

Page

Conflict Sensitivity Appraisal (CSA)

Purpose

This tool complements the WASH for Peace Programming Guide’s Section 2. The ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of conflict-sensitive WASH’. In fragile and conflict-affected contexts (FCCs) conflict sensitivity is a minimum requirement of all programmes and interventions. This Tool can be used to carry out an initial conflict sensitivity appraisal (CSA) to determine the potential two-way interactions between the planned intervention and relevant conflict issues identified in the Conflict and Peace Analysis or Scan (CP Scan). The CSA can help WASH teams and sector partners to jointly identify potential conflict-insensitive practices and negative impacts on context, and develop relevant mitigation actions to support programme design. When the programme or intervention is designed with an implementing partner, the CSA must be either jointly undertaken or implemented by the partner as part of the programme development process. The tool can also be used to implement periodic spot checks during implementation. The tool includes: guiding questions and prompts to design conflict-sensitive programming, key considerations and guidance to adjust programming during implementation, and a checklist and examples to illustrate types of actions that relate to key WASH interventions. A critical step in ensuring the CP Scan findings inform programming is to integrate a conflict-sensitive approach from the very first stages of programme/intervention planning and design. Linking conflict analysis to the project design involves:

Reviewing all key parameters of a project in view of their link to the conflict context
Assessing the risks of implementation being affected by conflict issues or contributing to tensions
Identifying opportunities for reinforcing peace outcomes (increased dialogue between divided groups, less violence, etc.) through the planned intervention
Identifying changes to the original project design to avoid unintentionally contributing to tensions

Key conflict issue

Identify the key WASH–conflict interactions in the intervention context – conflict causes/drivers, stakeholders, potential two-way interactions with the planned intervention (impact of intervention on context/context impact on intervention)

Example

Water-scarce context with frequent inter-communal clashes over water points access for cattle (community X pastoralist) and irrigation (community Y agriculturalists), upcoming local elections in month X with a history of violence during campaigning.

Design questions	Proposed intervention design	Potential WASH-Conflict Interactions: Risks & Opportunities	Conflict sensitivity measure or adjustment
What?	Describe the main elements of the planned intervention	Risk: what aspects of the intervention approach/inputs can fuel conflict? Opportunity: what aspects of the programme approach/inputs can mitigate conflict risks?	How can the intervention approach/inputs be adapted to maximize opportunities and minimize risks?
Example	Borehole drilling to support agricultural development in water-scarce district where communities X and Y live	Risk: planned design caters for single community/use Opportunity: explore innovative design that can benefit broader community and cater for diverse needs	Consider expanding the use of the water source to cater for both communities and encourage the joint management of the initiative
Who?	Describe direct and indirect beneficiaries of the planned intervention and targeting criteria	Risk: what aspects of the intervention direct/indirect beneficiaries and targeting criteria can fuel conflict? Opportunity: what aspects of the project direct/indirect beneficiaries and targeting criteria can mitigate conflict risks?	How can the intervention project direct/indirect beneficiaries and targeting criteria be adapted to maximize opportunities and minimize risks?
Example	Mainly community Y	Risk: exacerbating inter-communal conflict Opportunity: bring two communities together to devise equitable and conflict sensitive approaches that support win-win outcomes	Include both communities in the targeting, and engage both in the design and implementation
Where?	Describe geographic targeting and criteria	Risk: what aspects of the intervention geographic targeting and criteria can fuel conflict? Opportunity: what aspects of the geographic targeting and criteria can mitigate conflict risks?	How can the intervention geographic targeting and criteria be adapted to maximize opportunities and minimize risks?
Example	Project target areas more easily accessible to community Y	Risk: fuelling grievances among excluded communities Opportunity: consider area-based approaches that leverage planned investment and/or others to promote equity	Work closely with local authorities and local community leaders to link the initiative to broader WASH development plans already supported by UNICEF
How?	Describe the main approaches deployed in the implementation of your intervention	Risk: what aspects of the intervention approaches can fuel conflict? Opportunity: what aspects of the intervention approaches can mitigate conflict risks?	How can the intervention approaches be adapted to maximize opportunities and minimize risks?
Example	Technical assessment of water availability, setting up of water committee with community in catchment area	Risk: engaging only one community risks alienating the other Opportunity: engaging the other community in the assessment can enhance transparency and understanding of the planned project	Set up a joint technical assessment committee to promote transparency and understanding of the technical constraints and opportunities to equitable service provision
When?	Describe the timeline and key milestones of your intervention	Risk: what aspects of the timeline and key milestones of your intervention can fuel conflict? Opportunity: what aspects of the timeline and key milestones of your intervention can mitigate conflict risks?	How can the timeline and key milestones of your intervention be adapted to maximize opportunities and minimize risks?
Example	Project to be completed in time to support next harvest in month X	Risk: implementation affected by upcoming electoral campaign scheduled in month X Opportunity: mobilize candidates to constructively address water scarcity and conflict leveraging the planned investment Conflict-Sensitive WASH Programming Checklist	Work closely with local authorities and local community leaders to constructively engage and leverage the campaign and election process

Conflict Sensitivity Indicators

Identify 1-2 indicators that can be used to periodically monitor the effectiveness of your CS strategy – include both objectively verifiable indicators (e.g. # incidents) but also qualitative/perception indicators (e.g. perceptions of equity of the intervention) to capture the views of key stakeholders
Monitor equity – Disaggregate all indicators by all relevant categories: gender, age, geography, ethnicity, faith, etc.

Example:
• E.g. Decreased incidents of inter-community raids leading to violence
• E.g. Proportion of project participants in X and Y communities perceiving the project as benefiting both communities equitably
• Disaggregation of all existing intervention indicators by community and location, as well as gender and age

Conflict-Sensitive WASH Programming Checklist

Adapted from Tearfund Conflict Sensitivity Checklist

The conflict sensitivity checklist can used to guide and assess the integration of conflict sensitivity across the entire programme cycle – from analysis to implementation and programme closure, capturing both internal and external dimensions of conflict sensitivity:

Analysis and needs assessment:

Has a conflict analysis been carried out that provides basic information about the incidence and types of WASH-related conflicts in the context, including information about causes, triggers, dynamics, stakeholders, and local peace capacities?
Has a conflict sensitivity assessment been done to understand how the proposed action/activity will affect these causes, triggers, dynamics, stakeholders, and local peace capacities?
Did the conflict analysis capture the perspectives of all key stakeholders in the context, ensuring the participation of men and women, all identity (e.g. ethnicity, religious, cultural/linguistic, etc.) groups in the context, and adolescents and youth?
Will this analysis be regularly reviewed and updated, and have sufficient resources been allocated to ensure this can be done in a way that participatory/inclusion principles?

Programme design and implementation:

Does the WASH programme/intervention design take account of what the conflict analysis and conflict sensitivity assessment found? Have the causes, triggers, dynamics (water access and governance), stakeholders, and local peace capacities associated with water conflicts in the context impacted the way the project is planned and will be (or is being) carried out?
Is the project/action supporting or assisting certain groups? Are we ensuring that this selection will not make existing differences or tensions between groups worse?
Are we making sure that our project/action does not make tensions over access to resources (such as land or water) or services (such as associated institutional WASH in education or health care) worse?
Does our project/action take account of any threats or opportunities that might arise from any social, cultural, political or religious events and festivals?
Does our project/action consider seasonal changes or patterns of behaviour such as planting, harvest, dry or rainy seasons?
Are we putting measures in place to prevent any of the factions or key conflict actors taking control of the WASH investment to further their own political or security agendas?
Does the intervention consider potential loss of livelihoods among context stakeholders (e.g. local water trucking no longer needed, missed harvests due to WASH infrastructure construction work) and includes mitigating measures (e.g. maximizing local employment opportunities and inclusive/equitable recruitment to support construction and/or longer-term technical maintenance of WASH infrastructure, supported by skills development if capacity gaps exist)?
When the project ends, have we considered how its closure might create a gap in the provision of a service or increase tensions?

Communication and accountability:

Have we communicated the WASH programme goals, approach, and reasons for doing the project to all groups involved or affected by the intervention?
Are certain people selected to benefit from our project? Is the way in which we select these people understood by all groups involved in, or affected by, the project?
How is UNICEF/partner and/or the WASH intervention perceived? Do we know? Have we asked different types of people in different parts of the community so that we have a good understanding of whether our role and intentions are understood and well received?
How will any changes to the project be communicated to groups involved in, or affected by, the project in a timely manner?
How will this information be communicated at regular intervals throughout the life of the project? Will the information be accessible to all in the community?
Do we have a process for reporting, recording, and following up on requests and complaints connected to the project? Is this process being used, and are those raising issues being told about the outcome of their question?

Behaviour and procedures:

Do our actions and ways of behaving suggest that we judge different groups or factions in the same way regardless of who they may be? Are we consistent in how we respond to different groups?
If land is being acquired by local authorities to support the establishment of WASH infrastructure, have we checked that adequate compensation processes are being followed? Although UNICEF and partners are NOT directly responsible to compensate for land and/or asset loss, monitoring the implementation and community satisfaction with the outcome can help to mitigate conflict and reputational risks!
Have you considered the impact of those working on the programme (staff, partners, subcontractors, locally recruited labour) will have on the community and conflict dynamics e.g. ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, nationality, sex, and age?
Have you considered the impact on conflict dynamics of your local recruitment strategy, noting the need to recruit equitably and transparently based on ability and suitability and clearly communicating recruitment procedures and decisions to participating stakeholders – where possible and appropriate, recruit members from across all communities involved in the project (or as many as possible).
If the project is deploying a private-public partnership model (e.g. water utility) have we assessed the affordability/equity aspects to ensure tariffs and methods of payment do not discriminate or exclude certain groups?
If we are buying resources for the project, does the way in which we decide who to buy from have a positive or neutral impact on local markets?
Have we made sure that we are not undercutting local suppliers or depending on people who are aligned with one of the conflict factions or groups?
If we are engaging with government officials, does the way this is done reflect and reinforce their accountability, legitimacy and transparency?

Sample WASH for Peace messages

Learn more