FAQ
What is Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response (CHMR) and how does it relate to other civilian protection concepts like Protection of Civilians (PoC) and Human Security?
CHMR is the attempt by armed forces to decrease risks to civilians in conflicts by preventing and minimising civilian harm from their own military operations, and by offering a response when harm does occur. The Protection of Civilians is a wider aim and refers to actions taken by states, international organisations, and armed forces to shield civilians from a broad range of harm caused by own operations as well as harm caused by other actors during conflicts or crises. Human security encompasses both CHMR and PoC, and is an approach that focuses on protecting individuals’ safety and well-being by addressing a wide range of threats to their survival, livelihood, and dignity, including armed conflict, sexual and gender-based violence, human trafficking, cultural property destruction, and other human rights abuses.
For CPM, we have chosen to focus on CHMR as opposed to PoC or Human Security policy and practice, as the concept more closely relates to accountability for own practices, and refers to a concrete set of actions by specific security actors, which allows for stronger monitoring, measurability, and comparison.
Why is Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response (CHMR) important?
The occurrence of civilian harm and suffering during armed conflict is inevitable. Nonetheless, effective CHMR practice is essential for minimising the impact of military operations on civilians in conflict zones to the greatest extent possible. Protecting civilians by reducing unnecessary suffering and fostering humane conduct during conflict is a core tenet of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). CHMR builds on that basis and refers to attempts to prevent, minimise, and address harm beyond what is required by the law. Effective CHMR strategies not only save lives but also reduce displacement, psychological trauma, and the disruption of vital services and infrastructure. Comprehensive CHMR further entails that if civilians are harmed, the responsible military forces or governments seek to make amends to them or their remaining loved ones. Effective CHMR contributes to the stability and resilience of conflict-affected communities, reducing the long-term social and economic costs of conflict. Moreover, prioritising civilian protection can help to maintain public support for military operations, foster legitimacy, increase operational effectiveness, and prevent moral injury among service personnel.
Why does CPM analysis only cover the US, the UK and the Netherlands?
The CPM introduces a new, innovative monitoring framework. In refining the framework and testing its applicability, CPM has first begun with a pilot phase, focusing on the military operations of three countries – the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands – since the beginning of the so-called ‘War on Terror’ in 2001. These three states were chosen on the basis of their significant military contributions to recent campaigns, including the anti-ISIS coalition in Iraq and Syria, their stated commitments to CHMR, and important lessons emerging from each context on best practices and practices to avoid. In the future, CPM will expand to more states and we hope that other civil society organisations will also make use of the framework in their national contexts.
What methodology was used for the country analysis and leadership scores?
CPM consists of qualitative analysis of both policy and practice, based entirely on publicly available sources to ensure the analysis is verifiable and reproducible. CPM currently measures five indicators: the quality and comprehensiveness of national policies on CHMR, states’ practices of tracking civilian harm potentially caused by their operations, states’ methods for investigating alleged civilian harm incidents, the extent to which states transparently report about their practices and possibly caused civilian harm, and finally how states ensure victims have access to redress for harm. Each indicator has its own leadership tier, with qualitative scoring categories to describe the steps a state must take to receive one of five scores: leader, emerging leader, engaged, uncommitted, regressive. The leadership tiers have been developed based on existing research and consultations with civil society and government experts.
How far back in time does CPM analysis go?
The CHMR concept and related policy and practice was largely developed during NATO operations in Afghanistan (the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF, 2001-2014), and therefore CPM has taken 2001 as the starting point of its analysis. Older policy documents are included in the analysis only if they are still authoritative.
How frequently are the country scores and underlying analyses updated?
CPM is based on an intensive research and review process. We review and update CPM analysis and scores according to an annual cycle, taking into account changes made in policy and practice during the calendar year (from January-December), with each new report launched in Q1 of the following year. Note though that in the first year of our publication, this timeline looks slightly different. The cut-off point of our analysis in 2025 was 1 February 2025 and the reports were released in April 2025. Our reporting will always clearly indicate when the analysis was conducted. Updating our analysis on an annual basis allows states time to take significant steps between versions of our country reports, and provides an insight into developments (positive or negative) over the long term. In between the annual updates, we conduct up-to-date analysis of changes to policy and practice in our News section.
Why is the analysis only based on publicly accessible sources and where can I find these?
The analysis is based on publicly available sources only to ensure the analysis is verifiable and reproducible. CPM is also intended as a tool to push for greater transparency and accountability on civilian harm and its mitigation and response. By relying on open sources, states are encouraged to release further details on their CHMR practices to increase their score. On our resources page, each source is listed and categorised as a government, media, or civil society source. The sources are also referenced in the endnotes in the country reports.
Why are key issues such as mitigation and internal incident reporting not included as an indicator?
The current indicators were chosen because these represent key aspects of civilian harm mitigation and response, and allow for a cross-comparison between different states based on open sources. Other important sub-aspects of CHMR, such as mitigation itself, have not been included yet, as states rarely release details on their mitigation practices, and harm that was avoided is difficult to measure, resulting in a potentially skewed scoring. It is possible that the indicators will be expanded to include other relevant civilian protection aspects in the future.
What does CPM hope to achieve?
Independent monitoring of state practices in relation to CHMR is crucial as it promotes accountability and transparency, and there is currently no one framework that measures states’ CHMR performance holistically and publicly, while also allowing for inter-state comparisons. External oversight incentivises governments and militaries to adhere to established norms and standards, reducing the risk of unchecked power or impunity. CPM’s independent monitoring can further lead to improved CHMR practices as it provides unbiased assessments and evidence-based recommendations through which states can learn from each other and drive policy and procedural reforms. Additionally, CPM aims to contribute to trust within the international community and affected populations, as states are committing to addressing and learning from incidents of civilian harm. Overall, CHMR and independent monitoring work together to protect civilians, uphold humanitarian values, and strengthen accountability in conflict situations.
Does CPM measure adherence to International Humanitarian Law?
CPM does not measure adherence to IHL or give a legal appreciation of policies and practices. CPM aims to provide civil society organisations, policymakers, military actors as well as academics and media with insights into the protection-related policies and practices of individual states, and the data they need to press for improvements on civilian protection by establishing a leadership tier with concrete steps for implementing best practices. CPM further has a strong focus on CHMR policy and practice and as a concept, CHMR refers to actions that often go beyond what is legally required of states during times of armed conflict.
Does CPM provide unbiased, independent analysis?
Yes. In all our outputs, we aim to guide readers in interpreting states’ commitment to CHMR based on factual open-source information, ensuring our analysis is reliable and verifiable.
Can I use CPM in my own work on civilian protection issues in another country?
We welcome initiatives to apply the CPM framework to other countries. Please get in touch via our contact form so we can explore avenues for collaboration.
I have a question that is not listed here. What do I do?
We want to be accessible to comments and questions regarding our framework and overall project. If your question is not covered here, please reach out to us via our contact form.
