Business Case for BroadeningConflict Expertisein CARE

1.Relevance/Need

2.Experience and Expertise

3.Growth

4.Role of an Advisory Group

1.Relevance/Need

CARE’s mandate and Programming Principles: CARE’s vision is “a world of hope, tolerance and social justice, where poverty has been overcome and people live in dignity and security.” This is also a vision of peace and in working to achieve security and social justice, in many places in the world CARE must first address the open violence and the structural causes of conflict which undermine all other social or economic progress. This is recognised in CARE’s fifth programming principle which states our commitment to promoting non-violence conflict resolution.

2011 Global Peace Index Rank and CARE Country Office
153 / Somalia / 138 / Yemen
151 / Sudan / 136 / Philippines
150 / Afghanistan / 135 / India
148 / DRC / 134 / Georgia
146 / Pakistan / 132 / Burundi
145 / Israel / 131 / Ethiopia
141 / Chad / 128 / Cote d'Ivoire
140 / Zimbabwe

Peace and development are intertwined: Violent conflict disproportionately affects some of the poorest countries and poorest people in the world. It is also a major cause of poverty and a factor preventing poor people from realising their rights. The scale of the problem is highlighted in the fact that 1.5 billion people are estimated to live in countries affected by conflict[1] and no conflict affected country has yet achieved a single millennium development goal. Therefore preventing and addressing violent conflict is a core and necessary step to achieve poverty reduction.

Because of the link between poverty and violence CARE works in many countries currently affected by, or recently emerging from violent conflict, including 15 of the world’s 25 most fragile states.CARE has become aware that implementing aid programmes of any nature in a conflict or post-conflict setting inevitably affects conflict dynamics. CARE Country Offices (COs) are increasingly seeking to take this into account through ensuring conflict sensitivity in their programmes and organisational approaches.

Conflict can continue under the surface long after violence is stopped and peace agreements signed. If underlying causes of conflict are not addressed, relapse into violent conflict is likely and the cycle of poverty and conflict continues. Many CARE CO’s in conflict or post-conflict situations have found that they must address unresolved causes and impacts of conflict directly in order to achieve realisation of people’s rights and poverty reduction. They do this by implementing peacebuilding programming and conducting advocacy to influence the policies and practices of other agencies and donors in support of peace.

In 2010 CARE staff involved in conflict and peacebuilding identified five core components of effective peacebuilding programming building on what we know has worked in other contexts and with other agencies. Strategic peacebuilding:

•Is based on solid conflict analysis;

•Has a clear vision of the peace it seeks to construct;

•Seeks synergies with other peacebuilding interventions;

•Has clearly articulated theories of change for all its anticipated results and;

•Articulates the link between micro and macro levels, seeking macro level impact.

However, while conflict and peacebuilding work is itself a relatively small part of CARE’s work despite its critical importance, what little is done rarely managed to achieves the minimum level of quality which we know to be possible and which is our aim.

Equally, so far only 14 country offices have engaged significantly with conflict sensitivity or its practical methodology Do No Harm.

Gender and Peacebuilding

Peacebuilding and conflict sensitivity are directly relevant to CARE’s vision of gender equality, and gender equality goals cannot be attained without peacebuilding. At the global level Women, Peace and Security is one of three CARE International advocacy priorities and the Women Peace and Security working group brings together CIUK, CARE Norway and CARE Austria to support advocacy and programming around the full implementation of UN resolutions 1325 and 1820. The CI Gender Network has working groups focused on Violence Against Women, and Engaging Men and Boys, and the Conflict Community of Practice has recently created a working group to consider how best practice around engaging men and boys in conflict settings, which links to the CIGN. Peacebuilding is particularly adapted to gender issues because it seeks to target the root and proximate causes of violence, and understands the link between direct, structural and cultural components to harm/violence. However, as with development in general, failing to address the root causes of violence means efforts to transform women though empowerment programmes, and to work for a more equitable society will founder.

Humanitarian Response and Conflict Sensitivity

Already integrated into SPHERE guidelines and the humanitarian principles is a strong awareness of the need to tread carefully and to avoid destabilising the fragile context of a humanitarian intervention zone. Nevertheless, in order to fully avoid causing harm, there is a need to be systematic and coordinated. For this reason, CARE and other humanitarian response agencies have created six minimum standards to which all interventions should adhere in their programming and are rolling out training around these core standards. CARE is currently at the cutting edge of this research and must continue to focus on mainstreaming conflict sensitivity in our humanitarian response processes, to avoid falling behind and repeating the mistakes of the past.

2.Experience and Expertise

Despite peacebuilding being a niche within CARE’s programming, the sheer size and scope of CARE’s activities means that we actually have broad and deep experience in a number of areas which we can building on. A sample of 86 peacebuilding or social cohesion focused projects in 24 CARE country offices since 1995 shows the range of interventions CARE has experience in. Using the ‘Utstein Palette’ typology of 22 intervention types – CARE has experience of 20 types ranging from trauma work, food security to disarmament and reintegration of combatants (only mine action and electoral support are missing) to a value of $190m. Of these CARE has clear institutional strength in Institution Building (Working with civil society partners, building capacity of youth, women and CBOs in peace etc.); Bridge building activities (dialogue between groups, joint work); governance work and grassroots dialogue.

Utstein Peace Type / # of Projects / % of Sample
H. Institution building[WP1] / 41 / 48%
M. Bridge-building activities / 35 / 41%
G. Good governance (accountability, rule of law, justice system) / 32 / 37%
L. Grassroots dialogue / 28 / 33%
R. Economic infrastructure / 22 / 26%
I. Human rights monitoring and promotion / 17 / 20%
U. Food security / 16 / 19%
K. Dialogue between leaders of conflicting groups / 15 / 17%
P. Women and domestic violence / 14 / 16%
F. Democratisation (working with parties, media, NGOs) / 13 / 15%

In 2010, the first CARE International Conflict Community of Practice (CCP) workshop defined CARE as having a particular operating niche within the peacebuilding sector by virtue of its size, presence in communities and work with partners. These reflect our community/grassroots identity but also speak to CARE’s ability to work strategically. Often CARE has been working in conflict affected areas for decades and has built relationships with groups across the lines of divide. These relationships, CARE’s credibility and our global reach make CARE well placed to:

1)facilitate trust building within and between communities

2)help raise community voices and issues at a higher decision-making levels and

3)support the translation of national and international policy initiatives into good practice at the local level.

This appreciation of CARE’s niche is a reflection of the work we have done and the fundamentals of best peacebuilding practice as noted above.

Capacity

Within CARE members, CARE UK (CIUK) (five staff plus advocacy teams) and CARE Netherlands (C-NL) (five staff plus advocacy) both provide technical expertise on conflict sensitivity and peacebuilding. Notably, CIUK has led two large multi-agency consortia (2009-2012) in multiple countries looking at conflict sensitivity mainstreaming in practice, and on articulating and testing theories of change as part of peacebuilding design, monitoring and evaluation. This has raised CARE’s profile among donors and agencies partners which has translated into greater funding opportunities. C-NL has led five year multi-country projects within CARE focused on governance and peacebuilding, particular in Central and East Africa. In February 2012 members of both teams were trained together to become trainers of the Do No Harm methodology to help broaden conflict sensitivity in CARE, and there are a growing number of instances of collaboration and joint working.

Community of Practice

The CCP was created in March 2010. Financed by CIUK as part of its 2008-2013 strategy’s focus on conflict, the CCP is a network of practitioners committed to sharing information and best practice as well as innovating and learning together. The functions of the CCP are Knowledge Management, Capacity Building and Networking and Connecting. Now linking 85 members from 30 different countries (including C-NL and CIUK), the CCP is the leading space for discussion and expertise on conflict in CARE. The CCP has three objectives:

1)To capture, document and share knowledge and experiences in conflict, including highlighting innovation, thereby providing mutual support and resourcesto staff.

2)To foster collaboration so that knowledge can be translated through discussion and learning into improved policy, practice and guidelines

3)To engage in CI advocacy initiatives to share the experience, knowledge and perspectives of CCP members.

Activities include online discussions, exchanges, monthly emails of new resources, working groups and face to face trainings/workshops. The group is coordinated by a member of CIUK, with support from a contact group of CCP members. Currently, four working groups have been set up following the third workshop held in December 2011.

3.Growth

Busan

There is clear scope for growth in CARE of peacebuilding work as well as the understanding and mainstreaming of conflict sensitivity within our existing priority themes. Section 1 above showed how this aligns with CARE’s core mandate and vision, but across the aid assistance sector greater attention is being paid to conflict issues because of their severe debilitative effects on development. In December 2011 the ‘New Deal’ for conflict-affected countries was endorsed at the High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan. Donors and recipient governments also adopted peacebuilding and statebuilding goals, which will be adapted for ‘new deals’ at country level. This will help to make conflict sensitivity a more visible concern for development agencies working in these contexts, but it also represents an opportunity to engage more fully in addressing the underlying causes of conflict and violence in these states.

Tenders

Alongside the USAID PEACE IQC which CARE is looking to join with a new prime over the next year, CIUK has recently become part of a consortia for DFID’s framework agreement on Governance and Conflict in Fragile states. These represent potentially large financial opportunities to access funding for a small number of priority countries where CARE and its partners currently work. DFID, USAID and the EU, alongside many other smaller donor governments, continue to highlight peacebuilding, conflict management and mitigation and stabilisation as core priorities.

Specialised services/ Technical support[WP2]

As part of a changing CARE and in line with vision 2020, CI members are seeking new ways of clearly adding value to country level programming. Within work focused on peacebuilding and conflict sensitivity between 2006-2009 CARE country offices identified a series of functions which CARE members could collaborate to provide which would be valuable to their work. These included:

•Capacity building at the project, programme, or strategy level, and technical assistance - providing training, accompaniments and technical support to CO programmes and activities.

•Networking and connecting- organising and coordinating communities of practice and working groups.

•Mainstreaming Conflict Sensitivity in CARE processes – examining and advising on how to bring conflict sensitivity principles and practice into humanitarian response, fundraising mechanisms, recruitment.

•Advocacy – both thematic and country based – support on identifying advocacy priorities, building advocacy into programming work, and using networks and presence globally to help disseminate advocacy messages.

•Measuring Impact- offering specific support around the monitoring and evaluation of peacebuilding and conflict sensitivity.

•Finding funds – accessing funds on behalf of country offices from donors or mechanisms such as tenders; providing fundraising support by inputting, reviewing proposals.

•Innovation, Research and Documentation – identifying and partnering with academic institutions to capture what is innovative in CARE and encourage cutting edge work with country offices.

Work in priority CARE Areas:

Within the CARE priority areas, there is scope for further focused work:

Gender

a)Piloting a conflict analysis in a project or country office which includes a specific gender lens, including violence and restorative justice and control over one’s body.

b)Development of a vision of peace that acknowledges gender equality and cultural violence embodied by restrictive gender roles (masculinity and power).

c)Documentation, discussion and learning from CARE members with particular Gender and conflict expertise (CARE Austria), for the adaptation of tools and approaches to fragile state settings and the adaptation of conflict tools to be gender sensitive.

Humanitarian Response

a)Raising awareness in all CARE cluster areas, and building capacity in conflict sensitivity minimum standards (starting with ECARMU in June 2012)

b)Adopting the 6 minimum standards in our emergency response mechanisms

c)Developing conflict sensitivity capacities among emergency deployment staff and as specific skill sets on the roster for emergency deployment.

4.Role of an Advisory Group

Individually and in part different members are starting to provide these services, however more can be done to ensure this is done collaboratively and to raise the profile of conflict work in CARE. An advisory group could assist the technical teams and other mechanisms in CARE to work together in a more coherent fashion to achieve shared objectives.

Roles could include:

  • Advising: Providing guidance to the technical units on coordination, joint working and priority areas.
  • Championing / communicating: Publicising and promoting conflict sensitivity and peacebuilding across CARE, Helping to secure buy-in from CI members/CDs for staff time.
  • Linking: Creating synergies with other CI initiatives, with a focus on advocacy, emergencies, DRR or other core areas of CARE’s work in fragile states such as health.

Particular collective goals could include:

  1. Raised understanding of conflict sensitivity among CARE country offices in fragile states, and at RMU level, as well as the integration of conflict sensitivity with climate change, food security, gender and private sector engagement;
  2. Improved scale of conflict sensitivity and peacebuilding programming;
  3. Improved quality of peacebuilding programming through an agreement on minimum standards of peacebuilding programming, and development of technical assistance around these core components;
  4. Collaboration on trainings, including pooling staff to deliver trainings, and building up technical expertise among members and country office staff to deliver particular services;
  5. Centralised database of information including consultants, contacts, project information and knowledge products.

[1] World Bank, World Development Report 2011. Conflict.

[WP1]I’ll change the language of the peace type here to reflect the pb components, but I’m not sure if we can have the service delivery is/isn’t peace discussion in this paper. Rather the Prog Framework is addressing that directly.

[WP2]Rachel can you draft a couple of sentences that explains the focus on building up services and coordination before/instead of CoE – de-prioritisation by CIUK leadership? Etc.