Humanitarian and development organisations are doing more and more of their work in fragile and insecure settings. Shrinking budgets and a changing aid landscape are forcing practitioners to make harder choices about where and how they do that work. With violent conflict becoming more frequent, protracted and complex, conflict sensitivity is not an optional extra: it is central to delivering aid that is relevant, trusted and effective. So how can practitioners access the local information and expertise they need?
Conflict sensitivity hubs have emerged as practical spaces where humanitarian, development and peacebuilding actors can share analysis, test approaches and learn from one another. The Conflict Sensitivity Community (CSC) Hub provides a global platform that strengthens conflict-sensitive practice through real-world learning.
We have been facilitating learning exchanges from partners and experts in DRC, Ethiopia, Honduras, Myanmar, South Sudan and West Africa, including Benin, Burkina Faso and Niger, which have shed light on how these hubs can operate most effectively.
Although their contexts and models differ, they pointed to a clear conclusion: conflict sensitivity hubs work best when they are locally grounded, adaptive, collaborative and sustained over time.
Effective collaboration is not simply about aligning institutional interests. It depends on a shared commitment to strengthening conflict-sensitive practice and creating space for mutual learning.
What works
Let the context shape the hub. The objectives, structure, partnerships and methods of any conflict sensitivity facility should be guided by the realities of the place where it works. Ongoing, applied analysis is essential, particularly where conflict dynamics shift quickly and aid interventions can have unintended consequences.
The Conflict Sensitivity Resource Facility in South Sudan, for example, found that analysing power, change levers and opportunities for peace helped partners understand complex conflict systems. This type of analysis helps organisations see how their work interacts with the wider environment, identify risks earlier and adapt in ways that do less harm and support peace where possible.
Putting context first also means recognising that hubs are themselves actors in the settings where they operate. Their staffing, funding, relationships and perceived neutrality all affect legitimacy. Navigating relationships with local and national authorities, civil society and communities requires careful judgement, because formal or informal partnerships with state actors can create both opportunities and risks depending on the context.
Build partnerships around shared values and local leadership. Effective collaboration is not simply about aligning institutional interests. It depends on a shared commitment to strengthening conflict-sensitive practice and creating space for mutual learning.
The West Africa conflict sensitivity hubs illustrate this well. Rather than starting as a donor-led project, they emerged from a regional learning event in Dakar in 2019, where practitioners recognised common challenges: aid unintentionally fuelling tensions, fragmented learning and inconsistent approaches to conflict sensitivity. That informal exchange has since developed into regional and national hub spaces in West and Central Africa, Burkina Faso, Niger and Benin.
Engage beyond the usual networks. Several hubs have expanded conflict sensitivity conversations by bringing in actors who are often absent from humanitarian coordination spaces but play important roles in conflict and peace.
In Honduras, the Conflict Sensitivity Integration Hub conducted peace and conflict assessments that examined the role of private sector actors, including in the waste management industry, where gang control and corruption shape business practice.
In West Africa, hubs have involved government institutions, universities, pastoralist organisations and youth networks, broadening discussions beyond project delivery to include public policy, education and social cohesion.
Provide sustained support, not one-off training. Across the hubs, effective conflict sensitivity support combined research, analysis, tools development, coaching, peer exchange and accompaniment. Training is most useful when embedded in longer-term relationships. Co-creation, whether through peace and conflict assessments, networks of conflict sensitivity champions, or local knowledge exchange, helps make conflict sensitivity practical and owned.
In emergency contexts, practitioners face urgent lifesaving priorities and difficult resource decisions. Conflict sensitivity can help guide prioritisation, improve targeting and reduce risks.
What doesn’t work
Tick-box approaches generate little buy-in. Externally-imposed, compliance-focused conflict sensitivity requirements rarely change practice on their own. Aid cuts, budget pressure, siloed humanitarian systems and long-running crises can produce weariness and fatigue.
Genuine engagement requires more than checklists. It means grounding support in local realities, understanding partners’ constraints, being honest about trade-offs and working alongside organisations over time. Hubs are most persuasive when they demonstrate how conflict sensitivity helps partners solve real operational problems.
Conflict sensitivity falls flat when it is presented as a burden. In emergency contexts, practitioners face urgent lifesaving priorities and difficult resource decisions. If conflict sensitivity is framed as an extra donor requirement, it can seem like a “nice to have”. In practice, it can help guide prioritisation, improve targeting and reduce risks that perceptions of bias will undermine programmes. The challenge is to explain the benefits clearly and tailor the message to each audience and context.
Conflict sensitivity hubs are most effective when they are not treated as short-term technical services, but as adaptive platforms for trust, learning and collective action.
What next?
Focus on transformation, not just technical fixes. Conflict sensitivity hubs can do more than support better project management. As platforms for exchange, they can help communities, local changemakers, national organisations and international actors build shared understanding, test different definitions of success and embed skills that outlast individual projects. This requires honest reflection on the role hubs play within conflict and aid systems, as well as a willingness to support locally led networks.
Explore sustainable funding and ownership models. Funding cuts are forcing hubs to think creatively about sustainability. In DRC, the hub piloted a hybrid model combining paid services with in-kind support, while focusing on skills transfer and local networks that can continue beyond project cycles. In West Africa, members contribute in different ways, including facilitation, meeting venues, staff time, expertise and financial support where possible. This reinforces the idea that conflict sensitivity is a shared responsibility, not the mandate of one donor or organisation.
Protect spaces for collective learning. As the aid system changes and resources shrink, spaces for collaboration are becoming more important, not less. Platforms such as the CSC Hub can connect local, national and international practitioners, support horizontal and vertical learning, and strengthen networks of conflict sensitivity champions embedded in local contexts. The experience of the hubs shows that these spaces endure when members see them as collectively owned, practically useful and rooted in shared purpose.
The core lesson is clear: conflict sensitivity hubs are most effective when they are not treated as short-term technical services, but as adaptive platforms for trust, learning and collective action. In fragile and fast-changing contexts, that work is not optional. It is how aid can remain relevant, reduce harm and contribute to more peaceful outcomes.
