Fragility and Conflicts
Kornelia Kiss
Fragility and Crisis Management Unit
2014 January
Outline of the presentation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Understanding conflict & fragility
Fragile States Principles
Where are we now?
New Deal for engagement in fragile states
Monitoring fragile states
What and how to do differently?
2
Understanding conflict
 Conflict is an inherent and legitimate part of social and
political life.
 Conflict is often a precursor to positive change.
 Understanding the causes of conflict:
 Motive
 Means
 Opportunity
 Triggers
3
1. What is your understanding of fragility?
Definition of fragile states
“A fragile region or state has weak capacity to carry out basic
governance functions, and lacks the ability to develop mutually
constructive relations with society. Fragile states are also more
vulnerable to internal or external shocks such as economic crises or
natural disasters. More resilient states exhibit the capacity and legitimacy
of governing a population and its territory. They can manage and adapt to
changing social needs and expectations, shifts in elite and other political
agreements, and growing institutional complexity. Fragility and
resilience should be seen as shifting points along a spectrum”
Which states are fragile ?
• A World Bank/ADB list
• An OECD list
• The Commission Crisis Declaration list
4
Definition of fragility by g7+ – a
more dynamic point of view
"A state of fragility can be understood as a period
of time during nationhood when sustainable socioeconomic development requires greater emphasis
on complementary peacebuilding and statebuilding
activities such as

-building inclusive political settlements,

-security,

-justice,

-jobs,

-good management of resources, and

-accountable and fair service delivery."
5
6
Linkages between Fragility and Conflict?
 Conflict as a symptom of fragility
 Conflict as a cause of fragility
 Conflict as a consequence of fragility
7
Specific features of fragile states
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Deficits in governance/lack of government capacity/legitimacy
Multiple priorities
Few implementing partners
Inability to maintain security
Inability to ensure that the essential needs of its population are met
Ungovernable flows of aid
Opaque decision-making by a small elite
Erosion of the people’s trust in the state’s formal institutions
Are the Paris Declaration principles applicable?
•
•
•
•
•
Ownership?
Harmonisation?
Alignment?
Managing for results?
Mutual accountability?
8
FSP- can’t we do better?- 2011 analysis
Broadly on-track
Promote non-discrimination as a basis for inclusive and stable societies
(6)
Partly on-track
Align with local priorities in different ways in different contexts (7)
Take context as the starting point (1)
Focus on statebuilding as the central objective (3)
Partly off-track
Prioritise prevention (4)
Recognise the links between political, security and development
objectives (5)
Do no harm (2)
Off-track
Agree on practical co-ordination mechanisms between
international actors (8)
Act fast… but stay engaged long enough to give success a
chance (9)
Avoid pockets of exclusion (10)
9
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
10
DEVCO Managed external assistance Budget + EDF
Disbursements to fragile and crisis countries vs other
partner countries
(2012, in billions €)
DEVCO
Total disbursements
2012 that can be
allocated to countries:
4.9 billions €
Table 5.11 Country breakdown of European Commission development aid in 2012(Part I.- ODA + Part II non-ODA)
11
• Does not include regional, multilateral and "unallocated" disbursements that cannot be attributed to a country.
DEVCO managed external budget+ EDF disbursements to
fragile and crisis countries by DEVCO region (2012, in
millions €)
Total disbursements that
can be allocated to fragile
countries 2012:
2.7 billions €
Haiti
only
12
Half of the aid to fragile and crisis states goes to only eleven
countries (2012)
Data based on Europeaid budget+ EDF disbursements
13
DEVCO managed external budget+ EDF disbursements to
fragile and crisis countries by DAC sector(2012, in million
€)
sorted by biggest
Total disbursements that
can be allocated to fragile
countries 2012:
2.7 billion €
14 )
(Note: analysis per DAC code results in a different total figure (2.9 DAC code file vs 2.7 billion EUR-Annual Report
For the purpose of this analysis adjustment was made in the case of Occ. Palestine Territory+ Somalia)
DEVCO managed external budget+ EDF disbursements to
ALL countries by DAC sector(2012, in million €)
sorted by biggest
Total disbursements that
can be allocated to fragile
countries 2012:
7.2 billion €
15
EDF 10 initial allocation vs. EDF 11 allocation
Share of fragile states in the allocation
EDF 10 initial allocation on 7 year
projection
EDF 11 final allocation
Total 14,907
million €
Amount allocated to fragile states increased by 9%
16
Dili Declaration 2010
Conflict and fragility are major obstacles for
achieving the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs)
17
Understand the
CONTEXT
Analyitical tools
Analytical tools
New Deal country: fragility assessment
 Done by the nationals of the countries- only!

5 days workshop usually, but need long time for validation
Conflict analysis

2 day workshop with DEVCO EAAS and acedemics
(Political Economy Analysis- discontinued in its
current form)

Deeper, can take 3-4 months, done by international
consultants asking a lot of questions
19
Why to do things differently?
 "Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over
again, but expecting different results"
A. Eistein
Only 10% of the fragile countries have
reached the MDGs
By 2015 half of the world's poor will be
living in fragile countries
Eu Allocations to fragile and conflict affected
20
states will increase
The New Deal
 - Fragile states, grouped in the g7+ and Donor
community - set an International Dialogue on
Peacebuilding and Statebuilding
 - 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness
(Busan, 2011) launched the New Deal - a new
way of engaging in fragile states, with the
statebuilding and peacebuilding at the core
21
3.The New Deal (Busan)
PSGs
Peacebuilding and
Statebuilding Goals
FOCUS
terms of
engagement
TRUST
commitments for results
Legitimate politics
Foster inclusive settlements
and conflict resolution
Fragility assessment
Transparency
One vision, one plan
Risk sharing & risk management
Security
Establish and strengthen
people’s security
Country compact
Use & strengthen country
systems
Justice
Address injustices and
increase people’s access to
justice
Use the PSGs to monitor
Support political Dialogue
Strengthen capacities
Timely and predictable aid
Economic foundations
Generate employment and
improve livelihoods
Revenues and services
Manage revenues and build
capacity for accountable and
fair service delivery
22
3.Who has signed up?
23
18 members (Union of Comoros : New Member)
7 pilot countries
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Afghanistan
Central African
Republic
D.R. Congo
Liberia
Sierra Leone
South Sudan
Timor-Leste
+ Somalia
(Chair)
24
"Pilot" Country
"Lead" Partner What happened
Afghanistan
UK,
Netherlands,
Denmark
The Tokyo mutual accountability
framework regarded as compact
Central African Republic
France, EU
Slowdown due to political situation
DRC
Liberia
Pilot countries of New Deal
Fragility assessment done
Sweden and
USA
Sierra Leone
Fragility assessment donecompact in process (but on 1 PSG
only)
Fragility assessment done,
compact forming in the
background
South Sudan
Denmark, UK,
Netherlands
Fragility assessment done,
compact was planned end of '13situation?
Timor Leste
Australia, (+EU
offered)
Fragility assessment done
Somalia
EU +NW:
financial
1st New Deal compact endorsed,
fragility assessment ongoing 25
Chad
UNDP active
New Deal Pilot countries and other g7+ member
countries
Colour coding: New deal Pilot countries, Possible New Deal Pilot Countries, Other New Deal
countries (members of g7+)
26
 HOW DO WE MONITOR
FRAGILE STATES?
27
The New Deal process
Outputs
Fragility assessment workshop
Analysing the country's fragility
along the 5 PSGs and
their sub-dimensions
Fragility assessment
text
Fragility spectrum
Agree on
priorities
and form a
Transition
compact
Draft Indicators
Help: Guidance how to conduct
a fragility assessment
Help: Menu of indicators
(indicators working group)
28
Fragility Assessments
7 pilot countries have self-nominated themselves to pilot the new deal until
2015
five countries undertaken fragility assessments (Sierra Leone, Timor Leste,
DRC, South Sudan, Liberia)
The
1. Where are we now?
assessment
asks four key
questions:
2. Where do we want to get to?
3. How do we get there?
The Assessment
One Vision
One Plan
4. How do we measure progress?
Indicators
29
Fragility assessment and spectrum
DRC example
PSG
Phase 1
Crisis
Phase 3.
Phase 4.
Phase 5.
Transition Transformation Resilience
2,2
Inclusive politics
Security
1,9
Justice
1,5
Economic
foundations
Revenues&Services
Phase 2.
Rebuild
&reform
2
1,7
30
Fragility spectrum with subdimensions
31
Comparison of fragility spectrums
32
New Deal Indicators
33
Inclusive politics
Note: examples only, list is not comprehensive
 1.1 Political Settlement
Diversity in representation (by gender, region and social
groups) in key-decision making bodies (legislature,
government, military, judiciary)
Perception of representation (and its effectiveness) in
government
 1.2 Political Processes and Institutions

Participation in elections and political processes by region,
gender and social groups
 1.3 Societal Relationships

Number of intra-group disputes that produce violence
34
Security
Note: examples only, list is not comprehensive
2.1 Security Conditions
-Violent deaths per 100,000 population (including
homicides, mob violence, violence against civilians)
-Incidence of rape and sexual violence
-% of people that feel safe (perception survey)
2.2 Capacity and Accountability
 -Timely payment of police salaries

-Recruitment practices and vetting processes
2.3 Performance and Responsiveness
 Level of confidence in police/security (%,
disaggregated by gender, region, social
group)
35
Justice
Note: examples only, list is not comprehensive
 3.1 Justice Conditions


-% of victims who reported crimes to the authorities
-Public confidence in the performance of justice
systems (formal and customary) including human
rights mechanisms
 3.2.Capacity and Accountability of Justice
Institutions

Prison population in pre-trial detention past the
legal limitation
 3.3 Access to Justice

Proximity to formal and customary justice
institutions to the public (basket indicators)
36
Note: examples only, list is not comprehensive
Economic Foundations
 4.1Productive Resources and Prospects
for Growth

% of population with access to useable and
serviceable transport networks, communication,
water and energy (multiple indicators)
 4.2 Jobs, Livelihoods and Private Sector
Development

% of labour force under- and unemployed (by youth,
gender, region)
 4.3 Natural Resource Management

Existence and enforcement of regulatory framework37
for natural resource management
Revenues and Services
 5.1 Revenues


Note: examples only, list is not comprehensive
State monopoly and capacity to collect and
administer tax, customs and fees across the
territory
Tax revenue as a share of GDP
 5.2 Public Administration

Quality of public financial management and internal
oversight mechanisms (indicators from PEFA)
 5.3 Service Delivery

Distribution of services by region and social group

Public satisfaction with service delivery
38
Linkage between g7+ and Post-2015 Development Agenda
g7+ implement
New Deal
(piloting) at
country level
Inform the HLP on
Post-2015
Development
Agenda
(2012-2015).
(2012)
Post-2015
Development
Agenda
????
39
What's new for EU programming and
planning ?
 Fragility elements taken into account: PEA, conflict analysis,
fragility assessments;
 PSGs as sectors of intervention;
 Flexibility - Additional intervention to the three sectors!
 Support to transition compacts or equivalent;
 Ensuring synergies: ECHO, IFS, EDF/DCI, CSDP;
 Using new tools (EU joint programming, JFDs, etc).
40
Understanding
Compacts
What is a New Deal compact?
 A simplified, flexible mutual accountability framework:
• WHAT are collective priorities?
• HOW can these can be delivered?
 A commitment by national and international partners to be:
• Transparent
• Realistic
• Compliant
 A forum for strategic partnership that:
• builds ownership
• delivers results
• facilitates collective risk management
42
Questions when considering a compact
Is the political environment right?
Is there a commitment to FOCUS & TRUST?
Who should be involved?
How would the compact link to other
initiatives?
 What are likely risks and opportunities?




 Compacts require political and
strategic decision making
43
What is a New Deal compact?
A mechanism to deliver on the New Deal
WHAT?
HOW?
FOCUS on the PSGs:
Build mutual TRUST with donors, through:
•
•
•
•
•
Inclusive politics
Security
Justice
Economic foundations
Revenue and services
•
•
•
•
Transparency
Risk-sharing
Use and strengthen country systems
Timely and predictable aid
What + How =
New Deal Compact
Figure developed by the g7+ at the working group meeting on New Deal
implementation and indicators in Copenhagen, March 2012
44
Steps to prepare a compact
Political & strategic dialogue between national and international partners
BUDGET
ENVELOPE
PRIORITIES
• National
budgets
•Based on
available
resources
• Bilateral
funding
• Multilateral
funding
• Non-ODA
relevant)
(if
Overview
of
Drawing from:
resources
• national
available
visions
for
collective • national
prioritisati development
on
strategies
• fragility /risk
assessments
• other plans
DELIVERY
STRATEGY
•Division of
labour
•Instruments
for aid
delivery
•Priority
capacity
needs
•Transition to
country
systems
ACCOUNTABI
LITY
•Timeframe
from regular
reviews
•Limited
number of
performance
indicators
•Principles for
compliance
Regular reviews and revisions to
ensure relevance
45
Somalia: the first New Deal compact
 16th September 2013, signed in Brussels
 Led by the Somalis, with lead support of the EU
and the donors working together – and reach
out to and involvement of all donors (Incl. Turkey and
Arab countries)
 Parts:
 1. Priority actions identified along each peace
building and state building goals
 2. Principles for partnership- mutual
accountability partnership with new financial
architecture for Somalia
 3. monitoring arrangements
 +Annex: list of actions by PSG
46
The New Deal is an opportunity to…
 learn more about the partner country through the
fragility assessment;
 consolidate partner countries' ownership and
leadership;
 work with other donors closely and coordinate;
 use "tailor made" indicators for fragile states;
 conduct political dialogue on some of the root
causes of the conflict;
47
Zooming out- Joint programing and
Fragility - 'Country type' breakdown
Synergies Joint Programming - New Deal
in Fragile
States
New Deal Compact
Joint Programming
Similarities:
Increase aid effectiveness
Increase aid effectiveness
Joint analysis
Joint analysis
Possible synergies/links:
Focused on subset of priorities
Joint government/donor strategy
Donor-wide
Coordination – with possible
division of labour (different
engagements around
priorities)
Indicative allocations by priority
2-3 years timeframe –
revisited yearly
JP and ND can "crossfertilise" each other
Development focus
JP may prepare ground for
a joint EU dialogue in ND
with the government Joint donor response
…and coordinates EU
position among ND donors Mainly EU(+)
Deeper division of labour
makes both processes Built upon division of labour/ donor
more effective
comparative advantage
Compatible definition of
priorities and sectors Indicative allocations by sector/donor
Timeframe aligned with national
Compatible mid-term development plan (3-5 years) but with
timeframes
interim, shorter phases, flexible
Entry points Joint Programming and New Deal

Potential links in following countries: Afghanistan, Burundi, Liberia,
Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan

Programming instructions for the EDF and DCI: Contain strong
references on Joint Programming in fragile states: "In the case of
fragile or conflict affected states, there is a particular need for a wider
group of donors present in the country/region to participate in Joint
Programming"

Commonalities of the two processes: Improve impact and aid
effectiveness (AE issues such as "timely and predictable aid are
mainstreamed in the ND); joint analytical framework and strategy

Sequence/synergies: JP could prepare the ground for joint EU TRUST
donor commitments in future NDs
Resilience approach and Joint Programming,
common aid effectiveness principles
Alignment &
harmonisation in
different contexts
• Joint programming as
harmonised joint
response, aligned to
country needs and
development cycle
• Resilience approach
tackles root causes of
food security, climate
change, and
vulnerability
• Resilience embedded
in wider
national/donor
development and
humanitarian aid
strategies
More
coordination of
actors and
actions crucial in
both processes
Joint HUM + DEV
also through
joint donors
coordination
Both target
the long term, at
programming
level
Common challenges of
ownership/inclusivene
ss
• Joint programming mostly
EU-driven, including some
other donors (i.e. CH, NO).
• JP led by the partner
country - wherever
possible
• Resilience primarily a
partner country
responsibility… if weak or
no central authority needs
wider society consultation
• Resilience action on many
levels / many partners
(individual, community,
country, region)
Resilience/Joint Programming: potential
Joint programming with EU(+) Member States has potential
to play a key role in supporting the resilience agenda
 Common actors: DEVCO/ECHO/EEAS, MS Missions, partner
country
 Investing in resilience is cost-effective, as well as joint
programming
Entry points:
1. Joint programming: joint analysis / joint response to
national dev. plan to include elements of risk/vulnerability
assessments?
2. Synergies in selecting resilience "flagship countries" that are also
JP countries?
3. Joint programming donor partners as "EU MS platform" for
resilience, bringing coherence/complementarity further?

Aid effectiveness in Joint Programming
AND the New Deal as well:
Partner
Country
Donors
•Ownership & alignment 
•Influence 
•Predictability & transparency
•Ability & willingness to do DoL 

•Pressure to do everything in
•Aid fragmentation
"standalone"
•Transaction costs
•Value for money 
•Visibility 
 “Working together is not just a moral obligation
to help those less fortunate, but it is an
investment in the long-term prosperity of all.”

High Level Panel Report
54
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
 QUESTIONS?
55