PROTOCOL P-24 | Conflict Assessment & Mapping

Do No Harm Review Protocol

TRIGGER Before implementing any significant response to an escalated concern, conflict intervention, or new engagement activity in a high-tension context.

STEPS

1. Describe the proposed response or intervention specifically

   What exactly is being proposed? Who will implement it? When? Who will be directly affected? Who might be indirectly affected?

2. Review each harm category

   For each category in the Do No Harm Assessment (T-27), assess: Is this risk present? How likely is it? How severe would the harm be if it occurred? What mitigation is available?

3. If significant risks are identified, revise the intervention

   Do not proceed with an intervention that has identified significant harm risks without first revising the design to mitigate those risks. Document what was revised and why.

4. For interventions involving communities in active conflict, apply heightened scrutiny

   In high-tension contexts, the risk of harm from well-intentioned interventions is highest. Any intervention in an active conflict situation should be reviewed by at least two people with conflict sensitivity experience.

5. Document the review

   Record: what was reviewed, what risks were identified, what mitigations were applied, and who approved proceeding. This documentation is part of the conflict response record.

6. Schedule a post-implementation review

   After any significant intervention, review: Did the intervention produce the intended outcome? Did any harms occur that were not anticipated? What should change in the design of future interventions?

PURPOSE

To provide a structured review of proposed responses or interventions before implementation, identifying and mitigating risks of unintended harm to any party. Good intentions do not prevent harmful outcomes. Systematic review before action does.

Roles and Responsibilities

Conducts:

Actor: ComRel Officer / Conflict Analyst
Responsibility: Completes the Do No Harm Assessment; identifies risks; proposes mitigations; recommends whether to proceed.

Approves:

Actor: Project Manager
Responsibility: Reviews the assessment; approves or modifies the intervention; authorizes proceeding.

Contributing:

Actor: External Advisor (if available)
Responsibility: For high-stakes interventions, a conflict sensitivity advisor or CSO partner reviews the assessment independently.

Field Notes and Adaptation Guidance

• Field Note — Harm from inaction is also harm

  The Do No Harm protocol should not be used to justify inaction. Choosing not to respond to an escalated concern also has consequences, for trust, for the escalation trajectory, and for affected communities. The protocol asks: how can we act in a way that does the least harm, not: should we act at all?

• Field Note — Power imbalance risk is the most commonly missed

  The most frequently unidentified harm in conflict interventions is power imbalance risk: a process or response that structurally advantages the more powerful party. Joint meetings, formal negotiations, and even facilitated dialogues can reproduce power imbalances if they are not explicitly designed to counteract them. This risk should receive specific attention in every Do No Harm review.

• Adaptation Guidance

  In projects with active CSO engagement, involve CSO partners in the Do No Harm review for significant interventions, particularly those affecting vulnerable groups or taking place in high-tension contexts. CSOs often have community intelligence that the project team does not, and their perspective on harm risks is frequently more accurate.

Required Output / Documentation

• Completed Do No Harm Assessment (T-27) attached to the intervention plan

• Revised intervention design if significant risks were identified

• Post-implementation review scheduled