 |
Potential and limits of Conflict-Sensitive approaches to Development: The Case of North Kivu
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
Potential and Pitfalls of Conflict-sensitive Approaches to Development in Conflict Zones
Reflections on the Case of North Kivu
Valeria Izzi,
## email not listed ##
and
Christof Kurz,
## email not listed ##
ISA Annual Convention, New York 15-18 February 2009
Panel: Securitization of Development
Wednesday, 17 February 2009
1 Introduction
Conflict sensitivity is now recognized as an essential requirement for development
1
programs and projects,
particularly in conflict and post-conflict countries. The notion that development interventions have to take into account the impact they might have on conflict dynamics became part of the mainstream development discourse in the late 1990s, as a reaction to the growing realization that external assistance can unintentionally “do harm” and contribute to the escalation or perpetuation of conflict. The concept of conflict sensitivity received recognition at the policy level, and was institutionalized within bilateral and multilateral donor agencies, with the aim of 'mainstreaming' it across all development programming. While development organizations have done a lot of thinking on conflict sensitivity and have adjusted rules, mandates, staff training and program guidelines, it is unclear whether these efforts have had the desired effects on the implementation of development programs on the ground. Are development programs today less likely to ‘do harm’ than they were ten years ago? Are they better able to contribute to the mitigation of conflict or to reconciliation and cooperation between groups? The answers to these questions are not straightforward. There is little empirical evidence and few or no systematic studies that development programs have made a significant difference to conflict dynamics on the ground in conflict zones. At the same time, the problems that have burdened development programs for decades – insufficient local buy-in and participation, unfinished or poorly implemented projects, limited project sustainability, corruption in program implementation – seem to be as prevalent today as in earlier days. Furthermore, development workers seem to get entangled in conflict rather more frequently, violence and targeted attacks being now the most common cause of death among humanitarian and development workers (Rowley et al. 2008). Approximately a decade since the OECD guidelines on Conflict, Peace, and Development Cooperation at the Threshold of the 21st Century (OECD 1997) and Mary Anderson's 'Do No Harm' (Anderson, 1999) first laid out guidelines for conflict-sensitive development, it seems opportune to take stock of the evolution of the notion of conflict-sensitive development with the aim to assessing to which extent it has contributed to ‘doing different things’ or ‘doing things differently’. Unlike other recent contributions (Paffenholz 2005, Barbolet et al, 2005), this paper does not attempt to assess the extent to which the notion of conflict sensitivity has made an imprint on development agencies’ mandates and practices. Instead, it asks whether
conflict sensitivity
– as defined,
conceptualized and ‘mainstreamed’ today by development institutions – can live up to the expectations raised in international donor documents. Based on insights gathered in the process of a four-month participatory conflict-analysis of North Kivu province in the Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), in which the authors were involved in 2008, the paper explores the meaning of conflict sensitivity in the specific context of North Kivu. It suggests that even in cases where a deep conflict analysis is undertaken, the obstacles to implementing conflict-sensitive development programs are considerable. These include the deeply political nature of all violent conflict and the need for
1
For the purpose of this paper, we define ‘development interventions’ or ‘programs’ as those externally sponsored activities that ’contribute to human welfare and economic development’, loosely following Riddell (2007).
|
| | Authors: Izzi, Valeria. and Kurz, Christof. |
|
| |
|
|
Potential and Pitfalls of Conflict-sensitive Approaches to Development in Conflict Zones
Reflections on the Case of North Kivu
Valeria Izzi,
## email not listed ##
and
Christof Kurz,
## email not listed ##
ISA Annual Convention, New York 15-18 February 2009
Panel: Securitization of Development
Wednesday, 17 February 2009
1 Introduction
Conflict sensitivity is now recognized as an essential requirement for development
1
programs and projects,
particularly in conflict and post-conflict countries. The notion that development interventions have to take into
account the impact they might have on conflict dynamics became part of the mainstream development discourse
in the late 1990s, as a reaction to the growing realization that external assistance can unintentionally “do harm”
and contribute to the escalation or perpetuation of conflict. The concept of conflict sensitivity received
recognition at the policy level, and was institutionalized within bilateral and multilateral donor agencies, with the
aim of 'mainstreaming' it across all development programming.
While development organizations have done a lot of thinking on conflict sensitivity and have adjusted rules,
mandates, staff training and program guidelines, it is unclear whether these efforts have had the desired effects
on the implementation of development programs on the ground. Are development programs today less likely to
‘do harm’ than they were ten years ago? Are they better able to contribute to the mitigation of conflict or to
reconciliation and cooperation between groups? The answers to these questions are not straightforward. There
is little empirical evidence and few or no systematic studies that development programs have made a significant
difference to conflict dynamics on the ground in conflict zones. At the same time, the problems that have
burdened development programs for decades – insufficient local buy-in and participation, unfinished or poorly
implemented projects, limited project sustainability, corruption in program implementation – seem to be as
prevalent today as in earlier days. Furthermore, development workers seem to get entangled in conflict rather
more frequently, violence and targeted attacks being now the most common cause of death among
humanitarian and development workers (Rowley et al. 2008).
Approximately a decade since the OECD guidelines on Conflict, Peace, and Development Cooperation at the
Threshold of the 21st Century (OECD 1997) and Mary Anderson's 'Do No Harm' (Anderson, 1999) first laid out
guidelines for conflict-sensitive development, it seems opportune to take stock of the evolution of the notion of
conflict-sensitive development with the aim to assessing to which extent it has contributed to ‘doing different
things’ or ‘doing things differently’. Unlike other recent contributions (Paffenholz 2005, Barbolet et al, 2005), this
paper does not attempt to assess the extent to which the notion of conflict sensitivity has made an imprint on
development agencies’ mandates and practices. Instead, it asks whether
conflict sensitivity
– as defined,
conceptualized and ‘mainstreamed’ today by development institutions – can live up to the expectations raised in
international donor documents.
Based on insights gathered in the process of a four-month participatory conflict-analysis of North Kivu province
in the Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), in which the authors were involved in 2008, the paper
explores the meaning of conflict sensitivity in the specific context of North Kivu. It suggests that even in cases
where a deep conflict analysis is undertaken, the obstacles to implementing conflict-sensitive development
programs are considerable. These include the deeply political nature of all violent conflict and the need for
1
For the purpose of this paper, we define ‘development interventions’ or ‘programs’ as those externally sponsored
activities that ’contribute to human welfare and economic development’, loosely following Riddell (2007).
|
|
 Convention | | All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention. | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Page 1 of 24 
