The context should guide the objectives, structure, management, partnerships and approaches of any CS facility. Ongoing, applied context analysis is essential.. For example, the Conflict Sensitivity Resource Facility (CSRF) in South Sudan found that understanding power, change levers and opportunities for peace was useful in helping partners to unpack complex conflict systems. This systems approach is a critical tool for unpacking power dynamics and identifying “change levers” in complex ecosystems.
Ongoing and timely analysis rooted in on-the-ground realities was a valuable tool for all the CS facilities, especially in contexts where conflict dynamics shift rapidly and where it is not always clear how interventions interact with systems.
Putting the local context front and centre also requires an acknowledgement that CS hubs are an actor in the context, with the objectives, staffing, funding and perceptions all having a role to play. Understanding how to navigate relationships is essential in terms of how the hubs are perceived and their legitimacy to operate. Exchanges across the hubs highlighted the sensitivities related to balancing relationships with local and national government actors, with the opportunities and risks associated with formal or informal state partnerships varying significantly across contexts.
Collaboration should be diverse and emphasise shared values, mutual learning and local and national leadership. Effective partnerships and collaborations are driven not simply by common interests, but by a shared commitment to strengthening conflict-sensitive practice. This came out most consistently in the experiences of the West Africa CS Hubs. Rather than being established as a donor-driven project, the hubs emerged organically following a regional learning event in Dakar in 2019, where practitioners from across the region recognised that they faced many of the same challenges: aid unintentionally becoming a source of tension, weak and conflicting approaches to the contexts and to conflict sensitivity, and fragmented learning. What began as an informal exchange and learning space has since evolved into four established hub spaces: the regional West and Central Africa hub, and national hubs in Burkina Faso, Niger and recently Benin, committed to strengthening and sharing conflict-sensitive practice together.
Engaging with non-traditional actors is crucial. The hubs played an important role in engaging with non-traditional actors who play critical roles in conflict and peace, but who were previously not part of conflict sensitivity networks.
For example, the DRC CS Hub has supported efforts to assist women farmers in improving the production and marketing of their products in South Kivu, North Kivu and Tanganyika. The hub produced guidance and support for the International Committee in Support of the Transition (CIAT) as they implemented the “Bean Cultivation and Women’s Empowerment (CHEFe)” project. CIAT and their partners gained a better understanding of the conflict context of the area and were able to assess the risks and opportunities of their intervention, ensuring that it would have a significant positive impact within the community.
In Honduras the Conflict Sensitivity Integration Hub (CSIH) conducted peace and conflict assessments (PCAs) focusing explicitly on the role of private sector actors, including in the waste management industry where gang control of businesses and corruption is rife. These assessments provided recommendations for new projects to serve the needs of a vulnerable population whilst mitigating the identified risks.
Similarly, the West Africa hubs deliberately engage actors who are not traditionally part of humanitarian coordination spaces, including government institutions, universities, pastoralist organisations and youth networks. Their participation has broadened discussions around conflict sensitivity beyond project implementation to include public policy, education and social cohesion.
Holistic and sustained CS support is a collaborative effort. All the hubs provided a range of support and designed it in a flexible way to respond to partners’ needs, combining structured technical assistance with more organic needs-based engagement. Assistance was not limited to one-off trainings, rather training and capacity development was built into ongoing accompaniment involving research and analysis, process and tools development, coaching, peer networking, skills exchange and lessons learning. The Ethiopia hub, for example, highlighted the additional benefits of ongoing accompaniment in building and maintaining trust and relationships. In West Africa, this collaborative approach extends beyond individual activities to the governance of the hubs themselves, with members jointly identifying priorities, designing activities and sharing responsibility for implementation. Consistently across all contexts, there was an emphasis on co-creation and exchange enhancing results, whether this was PCA co-production, developing CS champions networks or supporting local knowledge exchange.
Conflict Sensitivity Community Hub 