How Aid Navigates Conflict in Lebanon: Insights from the Conflict Sensitivity Approach (Part I)

On September 23, 2024, the hostilities between Lebanon's Hezbollah and Israel entered a new phase of dramatic escalation, as the intensity of violence increased and the geographical scope of exchanged attacks expanded. In Lebanon, the consequences have been catastrophic: Israeli attacks are responsible for thousands of victims, unprecedented displacement, and large-scale destruction of civilian property and infrastructure. Lebanon's weak state institutions and poor resources in response to the crisis further emphasize the grim element of this picture.

Amidst this context lies an increasing momentum and need for humanitarian action. However, experience indicates that the relationship between aid and conflict is inherently challenging. This article, the first in a series of two, aims to introduce conflict sensitivity as a comprehensive approach towards thinking about and working with aid in conflict settings. It then situates this approach within context of aid activities in Lebanon. Part II of this series will discuss important inter-group relations in light of the current war through the lens of conflict sensitivity and link them to program design concerns.

Conflict Sensitivity: Shaping Aid through Context

What is Conflict Sensitivity and Why Does it Matter?

In her book, Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace - or War (1999), American economist Mary B. Anderson argues that international aid, given in a conflict setting, inevitably becomes part of this conflict. Conflict sensitivity, of which the Do No Harm principle (DNH) is but one component, stems from the idea that when aid workers are aware and informed on a conflict's nuanced context, they can better understand how aid interacts with this conflict and what social, economic, and political dynamics arise from this interaction. Ultimately, this helps them design their projects in a way that minimizes unintentional harm (e.g. worsening social tensions) and contribute a positive impact (reducing tensions and promoting peace).

Anderson proceeded to propose an analytical tool that utilizes context analysis and prompts a dynamic feedback process linking aid's resource transfers and implicit ethical messages, capacities for peace/war (connectors/dividers), and options of program design/redesign. In other words, the framework allows for a context-based conflict-sensitive program design. Usage of the analytical framework (illustrated in Figure 1) can be summarized in the following steps:

1. Identifying and assessing dividers/capacities for tension and conflict
2. Identifying and assessing connectors/capacities for peace
3. Analyzing the aid program and its impact on the conflict

There are several key points here. When identifying dividers (STEP 1), proximate causes are more important than historical ones. While historical factors are fundamental to conflict, more immediate ones often provide a better contextual understanding. Second, aid workers should look for both existing as well as potential connectors (STEP 2); given conflict's dynamic nature, the dividers of today may be the connectors of tomorrow. Lastly, STEP 3 entails a continuous review and adaptation of the aid program in view of the changing context. This learning-based process can shape program decisions (where to intervene, why, how, with whom, by whom, etc.), and it also broadly helps reflect on whether the mandate, fundraising, and organizational characteristics of aid complement aid's desired outcomes.

It is worth noting that the analytical framework is a tool. While its utility is primarily shaped by the user's level of skill and knowledge, it is helpful to indicate what the framework does and does not do:

Does: Identifies key information categories relevant to aid's impact on conflict - Organizes this information for analysis - Highlights relationships between different categories and helps anticipate outcomes of program decisions

Does Not: Prescribe specific actions - Interpret events and factors for aid workers - Tell aid workers what to do

Conflict Sensitivity's Applications in Lebanon

While Anderson's book primarily discusses the DNH principle within contexts of civil war, it also incorporates examples where this principle is useful in non-all-out-war settings. Therefore, contexts characterized by socioeconomic and political instability, where the potential for conflict and tension is considerable, can also benefit from the insights of DNH and conflict sensitivity.

Lebanon is not an exception in this regard. With a social fabric and political system deeply divided along sectarian lines, sectarian polarization and political deadlocks have been recurring themes since the end of the Lebanese Civil War in 1990. In the post-civil war era, rampant corruption and poor economic policies aggravated the socioeconomic situation, culminating in a financial crisis and economic collapse in August 2019. Additionally, since 2011, the civil war in neighboring Syria had resulted in a massive inflow of refugees into Lebanon, increasing pressure on the economy and local capacities, sparking occasional tensions between refugee and host communities, and making the refugee portfolio a regular component of domestic political discourse.

Efforts to incorporate conflict sensitivity into short and middle-term programming in Lebanon is exemplified in the UNDP's Lebanon Crisis Response Plan Conflict Sensitivity Mainstreaming Initiative, in collaboration with House of Peace. In 2022, the UNDP published a series of guide notes, which provided an introduction to the conflict sensitivity tool, explained its relevance to Lebanon's context, and demonstrated its applicability throughout all stages of project design cycle. Since 2023, the UNDP has followed up with the publication of the Conflict Sensitivity Toolbox Series, which provides aid workers with context-driven practical advice on tackling cash assistance, engaging with local authorities, and M&E in a conflict sensitive manner.

To give an example, Guidance Note #1 (February 2022) focuses on the relationship between Syrian refugees and Lebanese host communities as a contextual priority. Among the identified dividers are the competition for low-skilled labor, perceptions that Syrian refugees receive more aid than the Lebanese in need, and host community perceptions that refugees' presence threatens security. The connectors, on the other hand, include shared familial relationships and economic ties, shared elements of culture and language, and efforts by local mediators to resolve conflicts. Awareness of these dynamics can be directly translated into practical steps when designing aid programs. Key recommendations in this case included co-planning the program alongside Lebanese and Syrian communities, avoiding absolute exclusion of either group in an aid program, and the transparent communication of aid allocation criteria with communities and local authorities.

Conclusion

Briefly stated, by prioritizing contextual awareness about dividers and connectors in inter-group relations conflict sensitivity helps shape aid and program decisions in a manner that reduce unintentional harm. For aid workers operating in Lebanon, conflict sensitivity is an indispensable tool to navigate a nuanced and increasingly complex context. There is a wealth of information on practical steps towards conflict-sensitive aid programming and program design, available at the UNDP's website.

In the next article (to be published soon), a conflict sensitivity analysis of salient inter-group dynamics within the context of the Israel-Lebanon war is conducted, alongside a discussion of how they may relate to program design.