• To reach a better understanding of the situation.
• To see more clearly the relationships between the parties and how power is distributed among the parties.
• To check the balance of one’s own and other’s engagement.
• To identify entry points for action.

• Can be used on micro and macro level
• Good for group processes as it is a visual tool
• Can be done from different perspectives/viewpoints and in this way show the differences in perception.

• The visual expression of the conflict can give only a snapshot of the current situation, conflict dynamics are not visible.
• Is relationship focused, less suited to analyse causes of conflict.
  

• What are the main parties of this conflict?
• What other parties are involved or connected in some way, including marginalized groups and external parties?
• What are the relationships between all these parties? Try to present these on the map. (Alliances, close contacts, broken relationship, confrontation)
• Are there any key issues between the party?

2. Place yourself/your organization in the map. This is the remainder that you/your organization is part of the situation and not external, even when you analyse it. Your organization is perceived in certain ways by others. Contacts or relationships with actors exist that can open opportunities for the working with the parties in the conflict (but at the same time might entail also negative consequences).

3. The mapping reflects a particular point in a changing situation and it points to action. This kind of analysis should be geared towards creating new possibilities. Therefore, use the mapping and ask yourself questions, such as: What can be done? Who can best do it? When would be the best moment? What is needed before and what should be done after?

4. It is also important to map the issues between the parties in conflict. Why does the conflict exist?
What is the incompatibility? Also think about the position of the conflicting parties. What are their views of the groups involved in the situation?





Adapted from:

• Conflict history: What were the origins and major events in the evolution of the conflict and the context in which the conflict is situated?

• Conflict context: Conflict does not emerge in a vacuum. The scope and character of the context or setting within which the conflict takes place has to be established. Such dimensions can be geographical boundaries, political structures, relations and jurisdictions; communication networks and patterns; and decision-making methods. Most of these dimensions are applicable to a range of conflict types, from interpersonal to international levels.

• Conflict parties: These are the decisional units directly or indirectly involved in the conflict and having some significant stake in its outcome. Wehr distinguishes three kinds of parties:
• Primary parties: Are those who oppose one another (whose goals are or are perceived to be incompatible). Often they are using fighting behaviour. Primary parties have a direct stake in the outcome. The primary parties interact directly in pursue of their goals. Each primary party can be internally differentiated, be composed of smaller units.
• Secondary parties: They have an indirect stake in the outcome. Often, they are allies of sympathizers with primary parties, but are not direct adversaries.
• Third parties: These are actors such as mediators and peacekeeping forces which might intervene to facilitate resolution. They have an interest in the successful resolution of the conflict. [Comment chachabooth: Reflect when using this tool whether third parties could also be other third parties, such as foreign firms with other interests than successfully resolving conflict.]

When having identified the parties, think about what the relationship between the parties is – symmetrical/assymetrical – their leadership, their main goals and the potential for coalitions between them.

• Goals and interests: Wehr highlights that goals and interests are not the same. While goals are the more or less acknowledged objectives of parties in conflict and usually expressed, interests are what really motivates the parties, what they really need to achieve: security, recognition, respect, etc.

• Issues: A conflict will normally develop around one or more issues. Issues are point of disagreement and are often generated by one – or several – of the factors below:
• Facts-based: disagreement over what is because of how parties perceive what is. Judgement and perception are the primary conflict generators here.
• Values-based: disagreement over what should be.
• Interests-based: disagreement over who will get what in the distribution of scarce resources, such as power, privilege, economic benefits, respect.
• Nonrealistic: originating elsewhere than in disparate perceptions, interests, or values.
  

• Causes and consequences: It is not always possible to distinguish a cause of conflict from a consequence. As conflict emerges, cause and consequence tend to blend. Hostility might be a consequence of one phase of the conflict and a cause for the next.

• Dynamics: A conflict is constantly moving and changing. Some dynamics could be:
• Polarization: As parties seek internal consistency and coalitions with allies and leaders consolidate positions, parties in conflict tend toward bipolarization, which can lead both to greater conflict intensity or simplification making resolution easier.
• Spiraling: Through a process of reciprocal causation, each party may try to increase the hostility or damage to opponents in each round, with a corresponding increase from the latter. De-escalatory spirals are also possible.
  

• Conflict regulation potential: Each conflict contains its own conflict-limiting elements and this is where peacebuilding engagement could find entry points:
• Internal limiting factors: values and interest the conflicting parties have in common, cross-pressures of multiple commitments of parties that constrain the conflict, etc.
• External limiting factors: for instance a higher authority who could intervene and force a settlement or an intermediary from outside the conflict.
• Interested or neutral third parties: These are trusted by all parties and could therefore facilitate communication, mediate the dispute, or locate financial resources to alleviate a scarcity problem.
• Techniques of conflict management: Methods such as mediation, conciliation, rumor control, etc.