This document provides guidance on monitoring and evaluating the impact of an organization's (IM's) work in addressing conflict dynamics. It outlines three key areas to assess: 1) Whether the project clearly explains how it addresses the sources of conflict through its approach. 2) Whether the intended changes and outcomes are well-defined and realistic given the context and timeframe. 3) Whether the organization's specific outputs and activities for delivering them are clearly specified. Addressing these areas will help evaluate if the project is well-designed to contribute to peace in a meaningful way.

1. Tool 1. Monitoring & Evaluation Health Check
 1. Is there a clear and convincing explanation as to how IM’s work addresses the
conflict dynamics?
Key issues to address:
 How does the project address any of the sources of conflict between the actors
(misperceptions, poor communications, different ideologies, unequal access to
resources etc.)?
 Does the project avoid any negative impacts on the conflict (this is the principle of
“do no harm”) and instead maximise positive impacts on conflict factors? For
example, does IM’s support reduce power imbalances between the parties to the
conflict, or encourage the inclusion of key groups that have so far been excluded
from the political dialogue process, or encourage parties to address gender issues
during negotiations on substantive issues?
 Has information been included to explain whether the context is conducive to
success by IM? For example, in a context that is not conducive to success, any
small successes by IM are more significant.
 2. Are the changes to be produced by the project well-defined and realistic
(i.e. the impact and outcome(s))?
Key issues to address:
 Is it credible to expect IM’s support to contribute, alongside other actors, to the
expected outcomes and impact?
 In the time frame for the project (e.g. three years), is it realistic to expect the
impact to be achieved? For this specific context, is it realistic to expect a new
peace agreement to be signed, or is a lesser goal more realistic such as agreement
to enter into a political dialogue process?
 If the desired outcome is “strengthened capacity”, is it clear whose capacity is
being strengthened and what knowledge or skills are being strengthened or
attitudes changed?
 Is it credible for the outputs (e.g. advice and mediation services) to result in the
outcome(s) and impact?
 3. Are IM’s outputs/deliverables well-defined?
Key issues to address:
 Have the outputs been formulated as products (e.g. advice to [whom] on [topic]) or
services (e.g. mediation services to [whom] for [purpose]) that are fully within
IM’s control to deliver.
 For each output, one or more activities should be identified to deliver this output
(e.g. meetings, workshops, mediation sessions, backchannel communication, study
visits).