KEY DEVELOPMENTS ON THE CONFLICT & FRAGILITY AGENDA: 2008-2011
1. Creation of International Network on Conflict and fragility:
More close linking of peacebuilding, statebuilding and security agendas; recognition that
different approaches are required in fragile and conflict-affected states
2. The International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding:
Working to change the way aid is delivered in fragile and conflict-affected states;
emerging set of international peacebuilding and statebuilding objectives that center on
political dialogue, basic security & justice, economic recovery and statebuilding
3. OECD Statebuilding Guidance:
Development of resilient and legitimate states require parallel support to political
settlements, state responsiveness & capacity and society’s needs and expectations;
limited role of donors and need for long-term engagement.
4. Forthcoming OECD guidance on transition financing:
Aid delivery (and instruments used) needs to fundamentally change to deliver better
results during war-to-peace transitions.
5. Risks and results:
Successful engagement in high-risk contexts requires better risk management and
mitigation, based on collective approaches and better results definition
In addition, UN SG’s report on peacebuilding, World Development Report etc
THE CONFLICT & FRAGILITY AGENDA: LOOKING AHEAD
INTERNATIONAL DIALOGUE
Armed
violence
reduction
Transition
financing
Statebuilding
guidance
INCAF work
Working
group
meetings
Nov-Dec 2010
Dili
declaration
2010
High level
meeting
Accra
2008
Fragile states
principles
adopted 2007
Fragile states
principles
developed 2005
Working
group
meetings
April-May
2011
Fragile states
principles
survey 2009
Monrovia
ministerial
2011
High
Level
Meeting
Busan
(end2011)
Fragile
states
principles
survey 2011
FRAGILE STATES PRINCIPLES SURVEY
SOME CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
1. Traditional approaches not delivering in fragile and conflict-affected states
Traditional approaches to aid delivery and effectiveness to complex in situations of
conflict and fragility. Different approaches needed – flexibility, speed, risk tolerance
2. More clarity on goals and priorities
MDGs not sufficient in conflict and fragility. Complimentary peacebuilding and
statebuilding goals being developed –provide narrative for donor engagement/evaluations
3. Fragile states principles guide donor engagement
FSP provide design parameters that donors have agreed to use to shape their
engagements. Monitoring survey provides evidence on use; can serve as baseline for
evaluations
4. Peacebuilding and statebuilding highly complementary
Peacebuilding and statebuilding challenges, objectives and activities are largely identical.
CPPB evaluations need to consider SB engagement and implications for programming