The Civilian Protection Monitor (CPM) has gone live as of last week: a groundbreaking tool designed to assess and analyse how states commit to mitigating and responding to civilian harm. This project is the result of tireless research, collaboration, and a deep commitment to improving accountability and protection for civilians in conflict zones. How did we get here? This brief article takes you through the journey of building CPM, the insights we have uncovered, and the first reactions from experts in the field. Most importantly, we will outline the next steps in our mission to advocate for transparency and accountability on civilian harm worldwide.
Published: 28 April 2025. Author: Lucca de Ruiter
Note: the full recording of CPM’s launch is accessible here.
How did we get here?
CPM is an adaptation of the Center for Civilians in Conflict’s (CIVIC) Protecting Together Toolkit. While CIVIC’s tool provides a broad framework for assessing the full spectrum of Protection of Civilians (PoC) measures, CPM focuses specifically on Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response, or CHMR (see also our explainer on what CHMR is and why it is important).
CPM relies exclusively on open-source information so that the findings are verifiable and reproducible. By using only publicly available sources, we incentivise states to become more transparent about their CHMR policies and practices as a way to improve their scores. We assess state performance using five key CHMR-focused categories, measuring both the robustness of existing policies as well as the quality of their implementation. Each comes with a leadership tier that sets out clear, qualitative scoring categories – essentially a roadmap showing states what they need to do to improve.
Each country analysis is the result of a rigorous research process, which includes reviews by independent external experts with deep knowledge of the country in question and at least one of the categories. We further share the revised analysis with relevant government actors, who are granted the opportunity to fact-check our work. Our final publications will be updated on a yearly basis to reflect any developments.
Why start with the US, UK, and the Netherlands?
Every ambitious project needs a solid testing ground, and for us, that meant starting with three countries: the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. Refining a monitoring framework requires consultation with governments and experts who understand the field, and PAX and Airwars already have well-established engagement networks in these countries. This allowed us to test and refine our evaluation framework in country contexts with which we are deeply familiar. Before we launched, we spoke with both civil society groups and government representatives to ensure CPM would be as useful as possible for a wide range of audiences. The longer-term goal is to expand our reach, bring more states into the fold, and encourage other civil society organisations to adopt the framework in their own national contexts. Ultimately, CPM should include states from different regions, with different conflict histories and challenges.
This year’s Civilian Protection Monitor – which includes developments up until and including 31 January 2025 – reveals key differences in how the Netherlands, the UK, and the US approach civilian harm mitigation and response. The Netherlands stands out for its commitment to transparency and accountability, with a willingness to engage in dialogue on CHMR with civil society. However, its approach in areas such as response remains somewhat reactive, and a lack of a standardised tracking mechanism limits institutional learning. The UK, by contrast, remains largely opaque, making it difficult to assess the extent to which good practices are embedded in policy and practice. Critical gaps exist in tracking and investigating civilian harm, but the UK is taking steps to better understand these gaps. The US, meanwhile, has developed expansive policies and allocated significant resources to CHMR, but full implementation is still underway. Additionally, recent political developments in the US have raised concerns, with leaders potentially moving to scale back CHMR commitments. While all three countries recognise the importance of CHMR and have dedicated resources towards civilian protection issues, each has clear areas for improvement. Our country reports can serve as an important tool in identifying the way forward, while also serving as a repository of certain good practices that other states should consider emulating. See our analysis page for further details on all three countries.
Next steps
Experts in the field have welcomed the launch of the Civilian Protection Monitor. Here’s what some leading voices in the field had to say during our launch event:
Mike Spagat, Chair of Every Casualty Counts, described CPM’s analysis as “extremely fair” and emphasized its value in fostering constructive dialogue with states on these issues. He also expressed interest in using CPM not only to compare different states, but to track how individual states improve or decline over time. Laura Boillot, Director of Article 36, praised CPM for its “clear and accessible” approach to identifying gaps and recommending actions for improvement. She proposed expanding the framework to assess how countries use weapons in line with their international commitments. Lydia Day of Unredacted echoed the tool’s usefulness, highlighting its potential to promote greater transparency and support research efforts.
Over the next months and years, we will be fine-tuning the framework, bringing more countries into the assessment process, and working closely with civil society partners to ensure that governments take real and meaningful action to further the protection of civilians in conflict. We invite researchers, policymakers, and advocates to explore CPM, engage with our findings, and join us in pushing for stronger commitments to civilian protection worldwide.
Stay tuned for updates, new reports, and further developments as we continue this work. Or get in touch with us directly for questions, feedback, or ideas for collaboration.
