Do No Harm & Conflict Sensitivity Self-Check

Do No Harm is not yet part of how this programme is run. Before the next activity, commission a written conflict analysis with voices from all sides, agree selection criteria and explain them publicly, brief every staff member and partner on the code of conduct, and open a safe way for people to complain. Aid delivered without these steps can make a community less safe than doing nothing.

Context & conflict analysis

• We have a written conflict analysis for each area we work in — actors, grievances, power-holders and current dynamics — not just a needs assessment.critical
• The analysis is refreshed at least every six months, and immediately after a major incident, displacement wave or change of control.
• The analysis draws on people from different sides of the divide — not only our own staff, our usual community contacts, or one ethnic or religious group.
• We understand the history of previous aid in this area — who received it, who felt excluded, and what promises were broken.
• We know which authorities, armed actors and gatekeepers control access to each location, and we have agreed internally how far we will and will not go to obtain that access.critical

Dividers & connectors

• We have named the specific dividers in this context — land, language, religion, ethnicity, displacement status, taxation, past violence — rather than describing 'tension' in general.
• We have also named the connectors — markets, monasteries and mosques, shared water sources, schools, elders' networks, mixed committees — that already hold people together here.
• At least one element of our design deliberately strengthens a connector (for example a shared facility, a joint committee, or a market linkage across groups).
• We have checked that no activity, siting decision or committee structure reinforces an existing divider.
• Our public materials, maps, place names and terminology avoid wording that one group experiences as denial of identity or legitimacy.

Targeting & selection of beneficiaries

• Selection criteria are based on need and vulnerability, written down, and applied the same way in every location.critical
• The criteria have been explained publicly — including to people who will not receive assistance — in the local language, before distribution.
• We have asked people from non-targeted groups how our selection looks to them, and there is no widespread perception that we favour one community, party or religion.critical
• Beneficiary lists are verified by us, not handed over ready-made by a single gatekeeper, village authority or armed actor.critical
• Women, people with disabilities, older people, unregistered households and displaced families can actually reach our registration and distribution points safely.

Resource transfers & implicit ethical messages

• We have controls that make diversion of cash, food or materials to armed actors or officials detectable — and we would report it rather than absorb it quietly.critical
• We buy locally where we can, at fair market prices, without distorting local prices or crowding out local traders and producers.
• Procurement, rentals, casual labour and transport contracts are spread fairly and do not enrich one family, group or faction in a way people notice.
• Everyone knows our assistance is free, that no payment, favour or sexual act may ever be asked in exchange, and how to report it if someone does.critical
• Our vehicles, offices, allowances and staff behaviour do not send a message of privilege or impunity that undermines the community's trust.

Staff conduct & partnerships

• All staff, volunteers, drivers and daily workers have signed and been briefed on a code of conduct that covers PSEA, bribery and neutrality.critical
• Our own team composition — ethnicity, religion, language, gender — is balanced enough that communities do not read the team itself as taking a side.
• Staff can raise a Do No Harm concern, refuse an unsafe or compromising instruction, and stop an activity without fear for their job or their safety.critical
• We have assessed our local partners' perceived affiliations and community standing, not only their financial and administrative capacity.
• Partners and sub-grantees carry the same Do No Harm expectations as we do, with the risk, the burden and the decision-making shared honestly rather than pushed down to them.

Monitoring & adaptation

• Our monitoring plan tracks conflict-sensitivity signals — perceptions of fairness, tension around distributions, rumours — not only outputs delivered.
• There is a safe, confidential way for community members — including those we did not select — to complain, and someone is accountable for responding.
• We review Do No Harm findings as a team at least quarterly, and the discussion is minuted with decisions, not just noted.
• We can show at least one concrete change we made — a route, a site, a criterion, a partner, a timing — because of a Do No Harm finding.
• We have an agreed 'stop or pause' trigger and know who has the authority to suspend an activity when it starts feeding conflict.
• Lessons and mistakes are shared honestly with partners, the cluster or working group, and the community — not buried in the final report.