7 Ways to Strengthen Conflict Sensitivity in Everyday Practice

What changes when development and humanitarian teams move beyond seeing conflict sensitivity as a standalone tool and begin treating it as a way of working?

Participants in Helvetas’ online course on Conflict-Sensitive Program Management (CSPM) learn that conflict sensitivity is all about anticipating potential unintended consequences of their work, presence and behavior so that they can take action, both to avoid doing harm and to reinforce their positive impact.

After completing the course, participants were asked to reflect on how they would apply their learning in their day-to-day work. Their action plans reveal a clear shift in mindset: from seeing conflict sensitivity as an additional activity to understanding it as a way of working that should shape every stage of a project.

Across countries, working areas and roles, seven common themes emerged.

1. Moving beyond activities: Understanding the context first

One of the strongest messages from participants was the commitment to stop implementing activities without first understanding the context in which they take place. Many acknowledge that in the past, project design or implementation sometimes focused primarily on technical objectives, while paying insufficient attention to local conflict dynamics, power relations, stakeholder interests or existing tensions. Several participants aim to stop treating conflict sensitivity as a checklist of activities and instead to make context analysis a foundation for decision-making.

Participants emphasized that conflict analysis is not a one-off exercise. Particularly in volatile contexts, where circumstances can change rapidly, they highlighted the importance of revisiting and updating analyses regularly, for example every six months or whenever significant contextual changes occur.

2. Listening more and adapting communication

Communication emerged as one of the most frequently cited priorities. Many participants reflected on how poor communication can unintentionally fuel rumors, misunderstandings and mistrust. Several committed to avoiding one-way communication, where decisions are announced after they have already been made, rather than investing in genuine dialogue and exchange.

Transparency was repeatedly described as a conflict prevention measure. When the relevant stakeholders understand why decisions are made and how resources are allocated, the risk of suspicion and perceived unfairness decreases significantly. Participants stressed that transparent communication depends on communicating in ways that are simple, accessible and understandable to all stakeholders.

3. Broadening participation and inclusion

Another recurring aspect was the importance of hearing a wider range of voices. Participants recognized the risks of relying solely on authorities, community leaders or other influential actors when gathering information or making decisions. Such approaches can overlook the perspectives of women, youth, vulnerable households and marginalized groups, potentially reinforcing existing inequalities.

Going forward, participants intend to strengthen stakeholder mapping, establish more inclusive consultation processes, and ensure that decisions are informed by a broader range of perspectives – with the goal being not only greater but more representative participation.

4. Targeting, resource allocation and the question of fairness

A number of participants highlighted the selection of primary stakeholders and resource distribution as particularly sensitive aspects. Even when selection criteria appear technically sound, targeting decisions can create grievances, perceptions of favoritism and tensions within communities.

To address this, participants committed to increasing transparency around selection processes and decision-making. Some proposed introducing structured reflection and validation sessions involving people outside the project team to strengthen objectivity and challenge assumptions. Others emphasized the need to continuously examine how resources are transferred and who benefits from interventions.

5. Anticipating risks rather than reacting to them

A major shift evident across the action plans was the move from reactive to proactive conflict risk management. Rather than waiting for tensions to emerge, participants want to identify potential risks early and put preventive measures in place.

• Many plans included commitments to:
• Conduct conflict-sensitive risk analyses.
• Compare conflict risks with security risks.
• Integrate mitigation measures into project plans.
• Monitor changes in the context, warning signs and emerging tensions.

The widely referenced "Do No Harm" approach reflects this preventive mindset, with a focus on understanding how interventions influence relationships and adjusting them when necessary.

6. Creating spaces for dialogue and feedback

Participants frequently identified dialogue as a key tool for reducing tensions and strengthening relationships. Many plan to establish regular consultation sessions and meetings involving communities, local authorities, project teams, service providers and other key stakeholders.

Equally important was the creation of accessible feedback and complaints mechanisms. Participants recognized that grievances often reveal underlying tensions and can provide valuable insights into how interventions are affecting communities. By ensuring that concerns can be raised and addressed, one can prevent them from escalating into larger conflicts.

7. Strengthening individual and organizational capacity

The action plans demonstrate that participants are eager to translate learning into practice. To sustain change, participants emphasized the need for ongoing training, coaching, practical guidance and technical support. Several participants also expressed a desire to raise awareness among colleagues, advocate for the integration of conflict-sensitive approaches into project design, and to embed these principles within country strategies and programs.

At the same time, many acknowledged that individual commitment alone is not enough. Participants also identified a range of enabling factors, such as management and leadership support, dedicated time, financial and human resources, collaboration with local authorities and partners, and stronger links between field teams, the head office, donors and national stakeholders.

A shared commitment

Although the action plans came from participants in different countries, they revealed a shared commitment and vision of conflict-sensitive practice centering on: understanding the context, listening actively, communicating transparently, including diverse voices, anticipating risks and continuously adapting.

Most of all, the action plans demonstrated participant’s awareness that conflict sensitivity is not an additional project component, but rather an integrated way of working that shapes how projects are designed, implemented and reviewed. And the concrete steps they set out make clear how awareness will be turned into everyday practice. Next step: implementation.