Conflict and Peace Analysis Tool 1
Age and Gender-Sensitive WASH Conflict and Peace Analysis Framework
Purpose
This Toolkit complements the WASH for Peace - Age and Gender Sensitive Conflict and Peace Analysis (CPA) Guide. UNICEF’s Guide Conflict Analysis outlines the key elements of a mandate-relevant CPA – including the examination of causes, dynamics, triggers, stakeholders and peace capacities. The section below discusses each of these elements from the perspective of WASH, and suggests guiding questions to frame the enquiry. The proposed questions shown in the table below can be adapted to design a context-specific analytical framework, potentially based on an initial CP Scan (see CPA Tool 3 – ‘Age and Gender Sensitive Conflict and Peace Scan’ below) where relevant WASH-conflict interactions have been identified and prioritized.
WASH-relevant conflict causes
The underlying socioeconomic, cultural and institutional factors and relevant WASH interactions that create conditions for destructive conflict and violence e.g. poor governance, systematic discrimination, lack of political participation, unequal economic opportunity, grievances over natural resource allocation.
Guiding questions
- What are the structural or root causes of conflict (e.g. poor WASH service governance; exclusion of women and/or young people from access to services and/or participation; lack of political participation and representation in WASH service planning and implementation; grievances over water resource scarcity, allocation, and management) related to WASH in the project context?
- What can be considered WASH-relevant drivers or proximate causes of social divisions and violence (e.g. drought aggravating competition over pasture and water; worsening economic conditions exacerbating tensions about access to WASH services and water use; political instability and violence constraining access to WASH services; displacement placing burden on host community WASH services and water availability; pollution from poor wastewater management; lack of access to hygiene for specific communities which is seen by others as a risk for the spread of waterborne diseases)?
WASH-relevant conflict triggers
Sudden or acute events that ‘trigger’ destructive conflict and violence. When working in a conflict context, it is critical to be aware of the potential triggers that can contribute to the outbreak or further escalation of tensions and violent conflict, and understand what consequences and impact these triggers can have on stakeholders
and the implementation of WASH programmes.
Guiding questions
- What triggers could contribute to an escalation of conflict or an outbreak of violence in the project area (e.g. elections/political transition, sudden rise in food and commodity prices, climate events) that may affect access to WASH?
- Has access to water or WASH services been a conflict trigger in the past? What else has triggered WASH-related conflicts in the past?
WASH Stakeholder analysis
Provides an understanding of key actors’ perspectives, needs and interactions with each other and the conflict context. This can provide you with new insight regarding how to engage in collaborative and inclusive partnerships, as well as stakeholders to target with new and/or adapted WASH programming.
Guiding questions
- Who are the main WASH-related conflict actors and who are their supporters? What are these actors’ positions, interests, andneeds in relation to WASH?
- How do they engage in the conflict and what are their capabilities e.g. to enable or constrain access to WASH?
- What is UNICEF WASH and partners’ role in the conflict?
- Who is affected by the conflict and how are their rights to WASH affected?
WASH Stakeholders Interactions (mapping)
- How visible and accountable are WASH service providers, including private sector?
- If a water utility exists, is there a customer service mechanism that allows for interacting effectively with beneficiaries/customers
(e.g. managing grievances, communicating with customers about service disruption/water outages)? - During construction/upgrade work of water services, are there stakeholder (including communities) engagement opportunities?
- What is the relationship between groups with differential WASH access – influence, alliances, and formal/informal links?
- Who could mobilize groups to express discontent related to WASH issues or collaborate peacefully around WASH services and water resource management?
- How would they mobilize people (unifying the groups, organizing activities, financing initiatives)? What would their motivations be for mobilizing people? Who would be affected and how?
WASH-relevant conflict dynamics
Understanding the ‘pulse’ of a conflict context requires awareness of the conflict dynamics, including patterns/trends and forces that connect or divide social groups. For example, what are WASH relevant trends linked to the conflict that reoccur cyclically, and windows of opportunity for WASH programmatic responses?
Guiding questions
- Where are the conflict-prone/affected areas within the WASH intervention context?
- Is there an ongoing or prior history of conflict in relation to WASH?
- What are the recent and current conflict trends affecting or interacting with WASH?
- Have there been any attacks on WASH infrastructure or personnel?
- Has WASH been used as a weapon in conflict, e.g. cutting off water access or purposely inhibiting quantity and quality of water?
- Have WASH resources, infrastructure or institutions been unintentionally damaged by anyone during a conflict (e.g., collateral damage during armed violence) or as the result of protest? How? By whom? Who was impacted? What were the consequences?
- What are the best, worst, and most likely scenarios for the future of the conflict and its interactions with WASH (e.g. water insecurity, WASH service access constraints), and on what do they depend?
- What are the possible windows of opportunity for addressing conflict through conflict-sensitive and risk-informed WASH interventions?
- What ‘connects’ (e.g. joint water resource management, diverse communities sharing WASH services) and/or ‘divides’ (e.g. WASH access discriminatory practices across community groups, disparities in access to water based on identity) people in the project context?
WASH services and water access dynamics
Guiding questions
- Who has secure and reliable access to WASH services and water? What are relevant age and gender dynamics related to access? Is any party directly or indirectly denied access to WASH and/or water in sufficient quality and quantity? If so, do affected social groups perceive this limitation to be a deliberate manifestation of a discriminatory policy? What is the relationship between groups with differential WASH access?
- Are one party’s changes in water quality, quantity, or flow inhibiting water use by another party? Has human-made water scarcity or degraded water quality decreased water availability and increased the impact on the environment or human health? Has poor wastewater management led to environmental degradation in specific locations?
- Are water users highly dependent on the particular water resource in question, or can their needs be fulfilled by other means?
- Who has access to equipment or treatment options that help improve water access or quality (e.g., drills, pumps, irrigation equipment, filters and disinfectants)? Who has access to water infrastructure (e.g., dams, canals, cisterns) for domestic purposes and for income purposes? Who does not have these types of access and why not? What are the consequences of different levels of access on the different user groups?
- Who has access to data and information about WASH services and water resources, infrastructure and regulations? How do they get the information? Is it trusted?
WASH-relevant conflict causes
The underlying socioeconomic, cultural and institutional factors and relevant WASH interactions that create conditions for destructive conflict and violence e.g. poor governance, systematic discrimination, lack of political participation, unequal economic opportunity, grievances over natural resource allocation.
Guiding questions
- What are the structural or root causes of conflict (e.g. poor WASH service governance; exclusion of women and/or young people from access to services and/or participation; lack of political participation and representation in WASH service planning and implementation; grievances over water resource scarcity, allocation, and management) related to WASH in the project context?
- What can be considered WASH-relevant drivers or proximate causes of social divisions and violence (e.g. drought aggravating competition over pasture and water; worsening economic conditions exacerbating tensions about access to WASH services and water use; political instability and violence constraining access to WASH services; displacement placing burden on host community WASH services and water availability; pollution from poor wastewater management; lack of access to hygiene for specific communities which is seen by others as a risk for the spread of waterborne diseases)?
WASH services and water governance dynamics
Provides an understanding of key actors’ perspectives, needs and interactions with each other and the conflict context. This can provide you with new insight regarding how to engage in collaborative and inclusive partnerships, as well as stakeholders to target with new and/or adapted WASH programming.
Guiding questions
- What are the formal and informal institutions that manage WASH services and water (including water resources such as water courses, lakes, ground water)? What are their respective roles technically and in terms of conflict management? How do they collaborate or conflict? Are the services they deliver considered effective, and by whom?
- Do institutions equitably mediate grievances and/or competing claims for water access, social and environmental impacts, and benefit sharing?
- Do regional/local WASH and water management institutions have sufficient human and technical capacity to develop and implement comprehensive WASH services and water management plans?
- Have all groups (including local communities and indigenous groups) with legitimate interests, facing serious impacts, or holding formal and informal access rights to WASH services and water, been identified and recognized?
- Are these groups able to participate in management and development policy? Has the negotiation capacity of weaker groups been strengthened?
- Are WASH services and/or water resources perceived to be allocated according to political motivations or patronage?
- Do benefits from water-related development accrue to a particular identity group, economic class, or region? Have stakeholders been appropriately consulted and compensated?
- If a water utility system exists, is it (i) representative of relevant stakeholders; (ii) well-functioning and risk-informed; and (iii) politically independent, fair and transparent?
- Are water service providers (public or private) operating and maintaining the water supply sources transparently – are they charging users, is the user fee utilization clear to the users?
- How are the water and wastewater utilities perceived by users – are they considered efficient? Corrupted? Are the tariffs accepted?
WASH-relevant peace capacities
Institutions, groups, traditions, events, rituals, processes/mechanisms, and people, who are positioned and equipped to address WASH-related conflict constructively and build/sustain peace through their engagement in WASH interventions. Identifying peace capacities through conflict analysis is foundational to defining
potential peacebuilding programming entry points for UNICEF sector work. Peace capacities can become the building blocks through which peacebuilding can be supported.
Guiding questions
- What capacities for peace or conflict mitigation can be identified (e.g. traditional dispute resolution approaches proven effective in resolving water conflicts, intercommunal WASH committees, participatory and inclusive utility boards and technical working groups)?
- Has WASH service sharing contributed to reconciliation or peacebuilding activities in the context? How and why?
- Have water resources, infrastructure (including durable water systems, wastewater and/or storm water systems) or institutions contributed to reconciliation or peacebuilding activities in the context? How and why?
- Who were the key stakeholders and what were their roles during the conflict?
- Have WASH and water resource governance mechanisms, such as user groups, emergency flood management plans or river basin organizations, functioned effectively despite a context of conflict or violence?
- How did they resist or manage the effects of conflict? Which institutions and identity groups were relevant?
