Attachments
Introduction
Are peacebuilding and conflict sensitivity the same thing? Different but related? Completely
separate? Increasingly, practitioners and policy makers give different—and often opposing—
answers to these simple questions. Part of the difficulty arises from the “migration” of the terms,
as both have shifted their meanings over time, each coming to embrace more and more
conceptual territory. Also, the various actors involved have shifted their roles. Development
and humanitarian agencies have expanded from their traditional roles and increasingly attempt to
address conflicts more directly. At the same time, peace practitioners recognize the need to
address structural causes of conflict—which often requires development modes of programming.
In the process, many people have become increasingly uncertain about what these two concepts
mean and whether the distinction is even important. Why should we care about this confusion?
is it causing harm?
Experience shows that conflating the two concepts ortreating them as entirely distinct and
unrelated, results in poorly conceived programming and reduces effectiveness. This article
examines the damage done by this conceptual confusion, and proposes some ways to distinguish
peacebuilding and conflict sensitivity that, evidence suggests, may lead to more effective
peacebuilding and conflict sensitive practice. First, let us look at specific problems within the
notions of conflict sensitivity and of peacebuilding.