CC.6.1 Country office score on meeting standards for the identification and documentation of conflict analysis and conflict sensitivity

CC.6.1 Country office score on meeting standards for the identification and documentation of conflict analysis and conflict sensitivity

VERSION

V1.0 - 2026.03 — NEW

N.B: This indicator is an update to a previous indicator (formerly known in CRF 2022-2025 as CC.1.6. Country office score on meeting standards for the identification and documentation of conflict analysis and conflict sensitivity). In CRF 2026-2029, a new cross-cutting priority was introduced to align with the Strategic Plan focused on humanitarian principles where this indicator is better placed. All historic data is comparable.

INDICATOR CODE

CC.6.1

TECHNICAL OWNER

PRG-E

INDICATOR TYPE

Country Level Cross-cutting Indicator

Priority Area: Embedding humanitarian principles and conflict sensitivity

INDICATOR CLASSIFICATION

Mandatory

INDICATOR SCOPE

Programme specific

APPLICABILITY

This indicator is applicable at CSP level to all types of CSPs targeting direct and/or indirect beneficiaries.

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS

Score - Country Office

Categories:

• Does not meet standard

• Partially meets standard

• Meets standard

• Exceeds standard

DEFINITION

This indicator measures the extent to which the country office meets established standards for identifying and documenting conflict analysis and conflict sensitivity.

Below are some key terminologies for this indicator:

Conflict is a system of competitive interactions between two or more parties (individuals, groups, states, etc.) who pursue mutually incompatible goals or compete for the same goal. Conflicts can be pursued violently (e.g. war, terrorist attacks, etc.), or non-violently (e.g. litigation, tensions, etc.). Conflict is entrenched in human relations and is a natural phenomenon in the process of societal change.

Conflict sensitivity means minimizing the negative effects of operations and programmes on conflict / tensions and maximizing the positive effects on peace where possible.

Conflict sensitivity risks are the risks that programming or operations inadvertently contribute to conflict, tensions or violence in direct or indirect ways.

Please review WFP guidance on conflict sensitive programming here before proceeding to below standards.

Standards for the identification and documentation of conflict analysis and conflict sensitivity risks, and implementation of mitigation measures:

Structured and comprehensive process - The Conflict Analysis and Conflict Sensitivity Risks Assessment (CACSRA) should cover at least all conflict affected areas. It should involve a structured process, following WFP corporate guidance to undertake conflict analysis and conflict sensitivity risks assessment. COs may also innovate their own processes, but whatever process is used, it should cover all relevant elements and categories for conflict analysis and conflict sensitivity risks assessments. The depth of the analysis should be matched to the complexity of the context (highly conflict-affected contexts require deeper analysis) and to the intervention (those involving very significant resources or with known conflict sensitivity issues require deeper analysis). The CO should take a reasoned decision as to where deeper or lighter touch assessments are needed.

Actionable - CSRA should include a matrix that clearly links risks and relevant mitigation measures, lists staff in charge of their implementation, and outlines a timeframe.

Up to date - The conflict analysis should be updated in light of significant changes in the context or refreshed at a pace appropriate to that conflict context. For example, in frozen conflicts where there is very little change at the macro level, refresh of conflict analysis at the macro level should be conducted at least once every 4 years, whereas in fast-changing conflicts the conflict analysis may need more regular updating

Risks and mitigation measures are documented - Conflict sensitivity risks may be documented in the main risk register (macro level risks), field office level risk registers (regional specific risks), in programme-specific risk registers, (which may accompany a programme proposal), in a conflict sensitivity assessment, or in notes of routine meetings that discuss and manage conflict sensitivity risks (such as a project review committee or a regular conflict sensitivity forum). Mitigation measures should be documented at an appropriate level of detail to enable implementation and follow-up and captured in an appropriate place that is used by the CO for the management of conflict sensitivity risks at the relevant scale.

Implemented - The mitigation measures have been actioned. Some mitigation measures may involve one-off actions, others may require on-going processes.

RATIONALE

This indicator helps assess the level of integration of conflict sensitivity into WFP programming and operations at a CO level, through assessing the first and most fundamental steps of conflict sensitivity: assessing possible conflict sensitivity risks of activities on the basis of a conflict analysis and developing and implementing mitigation measures. For more information, please check WFP's Conflict Analysis and Conflict Sensitivity Risk Assessment Guidance.

DATA COLLECTION TOOL

The CO should complete the self-assessed data collection tool below and draw on a range of documented sources of conflict analysis, conflict sensitivity risks, and mitigation measures. A range of data sources may be used for completing the self-assessed data collection tool:

• Conflict analysis and conflict sensitivity assessments

• Other context assessments that have considered conflict

• Corporate risk registers

• Risk matrices included in proposals

• Risk matrices developed as part of a conflict sensitivity assessment(s)

• Meeting notes of regular meetings that discuss and manage conflict sensitivity risks such as a conflict sensitivity forum or a project review committee that considers conflict sensitivity risks

In some contexts, there may be discussions, decisions and changes made at the field level to programming / operations in which great contextually relevant analysis is conducted but decisions are not documented. This data will need to be captured through key informant interviews with field staff.

The self-assessed data collection tool to be used and accompanying criteria for evaluation listed below:

SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS

N/A- One data collection tool should be completed for the CO encompassing all key elements/categories of programme and operations (see data collection tools for more information on key categories/elements), covering all conflict / tension affected geographical areas. Thus, there is no sampling.

INDICATOR CALCULATION FOR REPORTING

Having completed the self-assessed guiding questions, with narrative responses to each question, the CO should use the narrative responses to score itself on the rubric below.

The completed rubric then provides the basis for the scoring:

0 = does not meet standard

1 = partially meets standard

2 = meets standard

3 = exceeds standard

The rubric for scoring appears below:

The CO should assign themselves an overall score based on the outcome of the self-assessment as follows:

• Does Not Meet Standard = CO has scored “0” on any one of the dimensions

• Partially Meets Standards = CO has scored “1” on all dimensions OR CO has scored “1” on one or more of the dimensions and “2” or “3” on all others.

• Meets Standard = CO has scored “2” on all of the dimensions

• Exceeds Standard = CO has scored “3” on at least one of the dimensions and “2” on all others.

DATA ENTRY AND DISAGGREGATION IN CORPORATE SYSTEMS

Data is entered at CSP level.

The CO reports on their overall status in COMET in the logframe by selecting one of these options based on their overall score:

• CO does not meet standards

• CO partially meets standards

• CO meets standards

• CO exceeds standards

Note: For the first reporting year they must input the first collected value as the baseline in COMET. No values should be entered for follow-up at this stage. Subsequent data collected in the following year will then be recorded as follow-up values in COMET.

Date Disaggregation: Indicator is reported at the CSP-level, disaggregation for data entry into COMET based on activity tags is not mandatory but should be covered in the narrative of the exercise sheet.

Data disaggregation will most naturally form around the units of conflict analysis. The key elements where disaggregation adds most value is to identify where gaps remain according to:

• Type of activity

• Location

• Elements of CO operations (procurement, staffing etc)

This will enable better identification of action points going forward.

BASELINE

COs are to consider assessments implemented during the 18 months prior to the beginning of a new CSP.

New CSP/CSP activities: The baseline is related to the implementation of the CSP and should be set within 3-months of implementation (i.e. the first value recorded at the start of the CSP will serve as the baseline).

Note: For the first reporting year, the first collected value will serve as the baseline in COMET. The “no data” function and its sub-function “Not applicable” should be used to report on the follow-up value for the first reporting year on this indicator.

Subsequent data collected in the following year will then be recorded as follow-up values in COMET.

Ongoing CSP/CSP activities: First monitoring value for the CSP serves as baseline. Every subsequent year, the CO then enters only a follow up value in COMET.

TARGET SETTING

Annual target:

CO to determine rate of progressive expansion of analysis, assessment and mitigation measure development across the entire programme and operations over the course of the CSP and explain the rationale. The CO to pay particular attention to sequencing in light of:

• Known conflict hotspots

• Fairly foreseeable conflict sensitivity risks

• The need to address significant changes in the conflict context

A CO should aim to meet the standards of conflict sensitive programming at the design stage of CSP.

FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION

Annual data collection and entry of the final score into COMET.

INTERPRETATION

Type of conflict – a rapidly evolving conflict will create new and different risks, demanding a more frequent updating of the conflict analysis and conflict sensitivity risk assessment.

Maturity of engagement on conflict sensitivity – COs that have invested significantly in conflict sensitivity over a number of years will likely start from a position of having a number of conflict analyses and conflict sensitivity risk assessments already conducted, and more advanced practices in documenting risks.

CO level capacity – having specialist capacity in-house at the CO level will significantly increase performance in the CS risk indicator.

REPORTING EXAMPLE(S)

INDICATORS COLLECTED & ANALYSED AT THE SAME TIME

This indicator should be collected and analysed in parallel to all applicable cross-cutting indicators.

COMPLEMENTARY QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Data sources for the indicator include written reports and KIIs, no further qualitative research required.

DECISIONS DATA CAN INFORM

The guiding questions include spaces for reflection on what actions are needed to address gaps – for instance that additional conflict analysis is needed of specific regions, or that the CO has not considered how food procurement might affect conflict, or that targeting is triggering conflict sensitivity concerns that need mitigation.

VISUALIZATION

LIMITATIONS

Scope – In some COs only a specific area is deemed conflict affected, and this area would then require a deeper analysis vis-à-vis the rest of the country. Thus, most resources would be directed at conflict analysis and conflict sensitivity risk assessments for this location – for instance Mindanao for Philippines CO. A lighter touch analysis would still be needed for the remaining area of the CO and to cover operations. This can take the form of the ESSF screening tool for programmes, or other screening.

Cumulative effects of programming – If we examine only the current portfolio, this can miss the cumulative effects of programming over a longer time period, similarly care is needed to ensure strategic level risks are considered at the level of the CSP overall. Thus, specific questions to probe this are included in the guiding questions.

Subjectivity – This indicator is self-assessed with high level of subjectivity that should be cautiously considered while analysing overall corporate performance.

FURTHER INFORMATION

For more information on Conflict Sensitivity please check this page.