| Key Activities |
Checklist and key considerations |
Maximize uptake and integration |
| Define the purpose and timing of the conflict analysis – why and when? |
- Inform conflict-sensitive approaches, determine conflict risks, and/or peacebuilding programming?
- Deployed in humanitarian, development, protracted conflict settings?
- To develop new or adapt existing programmes and contribute to what type of programming cycle – CPD, workplan, PD?
- To establish a baseline or monitor conflict context/interactions with WASH?
|
- Define the goals and purpose of the conflict analysis collaboratively with potential users – internally and externally if relevant and feasible
- Engage CO management from the very first planning discussions to frame and pitch the analysis conductively to uptake and integration and identify relevant and timely links to planning milestones – CPD, AWPs;
- Timing of the findings: align to relevant milestones, identify critical planning and programming entry points within your project, section, CO, sector and ensure the integration of the analysis is formally captured in relevant processes (e.g. SitAn, GRIP, ESIA, PCA)
- Engage planners in your CO and team (Planning and Monitoring, Field Coordination and Emergencies)
- Ensure you identify and connect opportunities for upstream (advocacy, policy, sector plans) and downstream application and reflect this in your design and outputs
|
Define the scope and scale
of the conflict analysis –
where and at what level? |
- Will the PCA be implemented at transnational, national, and/or subnational levels?
- What specific locations and what implications will this have (access, language, methodology)?
- Will the PCA focus on policy/sector plans (upstream) and/or programming (downstream)?
|
- Ensure the geography of your analysis is defined with inputs from your field office colleagues and partners on the ground – not only will this be a reality check but also create demand and ownership
- Ensure you identify and respond to the needs for the analysis at different levels of influence and impact – national and subnational
|
Define the end users/
audiences for the final
outputs – who? |
- Consider conflict, gender, and age sensitivity – who is included/excluded and why?
- Are research participants potential beneficiaries of an intervention informed by the analysis – need to manage expectations!
- Who will be the primary user of the findings and what are the implications for the approach and methodology (e.g. translation, inclusive format and dissemination)?
- Who are potential unintended audiences?
|
- Define the end users and as far as possible engage them across the planning, design and implementation cycle, creating demand and promoting ownership along the way
- Engage key strategic external counterparts as relevant (Government, United Nations Agencies, Cluster and coordination mechanisms)
- Engage strategic in-country donors (KfW, SdC, EU…) to identify and advocate for resources to be allocated to translate findings into conflict-sensitive/peacebuilding WASH programming
|
Define the implementation
team – who? |
- Who has: Regional/context and WASH expertise? Technical conflict and WASH expertise? The capacity, resources, time, and language skills? The necessary contacts/relationships to support a WASH-specific conflict analysis?
- Who is perceived as trustworthy and inclusive by key WASH stakeholders (internal to UNICEF and external)? Internal or external led – can the CO/WASH team lead the PCA?
- Role of FOs and/or TPMs as relevant?
- If external, what outsourcing modality is relevant – research institution, implementing partner, private company? International and/or national stakeholder?
- Multi-stakeholder/strategic stakeholder engagement
- Government engagement
|
- Leverage the ToR development process (if contracted out) to build internal consensus in the CO about the purpose, relevant deliverables, and programmatic integration actions
- Depending on the scope of the PCA, consider establishing a steering committee to engage strategic internal and external counterparts
|
Define the participants
and data sources – who and what? |
- Define the overall analytical framework (see Tool 1)
- Identify the sources of WASH-relevant data on conflict causes, dynamics (access and governance), conflict triggers, stakeholders (analysis and mapping), and peace capacities
- Identify stakeholders who can provide and validate/triangulate data
|
- Engage implementing partners in the design and implementation, encouraging the integration of conflict analysis into PCA PDs
- Consult broadly to ensure that the distinct needs for data (type, disaggregation, format) of different stakeholders are understood
|
Design the data-collection
and analysis approaches –
how? |
- CP Scan v. more in-depth?
- Primary v. secondary data?
- Quantitative v. qualitative data
- Direct from stakeholders (e.g. community participation) or indirect (e.g. WASH technical assessments)?
- Best tools for direct data collection: desk review, surveys, key stakeholder interviews, focus groups, and/or capacity development events?
- Technology-based and remote tools?
- Participatory action research and transformative approaches?
- Inclusive – disability, excluded groups
- Gender sensitive/equality
- Opportunities and relevance of child and youth focused and/or led enquiry?
|
- Design/implement participatory methodologies that capture broad and diverse perspective to ensure you don’t miss key voices, stakeholders or audiences
- Include in the design specific steps to accompany the integration of key findings and recommendations
- Ensure that conflict analysis contracts/consultancies include periods of support and accompaniment to staff and partners to integrate findings into programming
|
