What are the challenges of policy coherence and development effectiveness in fragile states? This report by the University of London examines the operational challenges posed by development cooperation in difficult environments and the responses adopted by donor countries. It concludes that improved coordination in individual donor countries is a necessary, but far from sufficient, condition for productive engagement with fragile states. In order to achieve development results, donor countries and development assistance agencies should join together to achieve coordination, harmonisation and alignment.
Global poverty reduction remains the overarching goal of the development community and the economic imbalances associated with globalisation continue to evoke deep concern. But geoeconomics no longer dominates geo-politics in international relations: security is once again a major preoccupation of policy makers. Yet, the intersection between the security and development domains remains heavily contested and concerns are widespread about the distortions that the ‘war on terror’ may impose on development operations. A comprehensive policy change agenda is needed to deal with the unprecedented complexity of the development problems faced by fragile states.
A broader concept of policy coherence that embraces human security and global stability would provide the framework for coordinated action. The ‘whole of government’ practices pioneered by a few donor countries would be emulated. Process improvements in donor countries would be accompanied by complementary adaptation of strategies, programs and practices in line with the hard won lessons of experience. Particular changes that need to be implemented include the following:
- Expand the policy coherence agenda to include security objectives. Initiate a participatory process designed to complement the Millennium Development Goals with Millennium Security Goals.
- Energise high-level political leadership to avoid development considerations being sidelined in global policy making.
- Formulate performance indicators for results-based assessments of policy coherence for development in fragile states. Undertake harmonisation of country typologies under the aegis of the DAC.
- Merge the security and development agendas through collaborative policy research and consensus building.
- Emphasise multilateral solutions and emulate the good practices used by Sweden, the Netherlands, the UK and other donor countries to promote ‘joined up’ government while pursuing donor harmonisation and coordination.
- Design engagement strategies based on sound risk management principles and disregard the ‘conflict cycle’. Address the perverse consequences for development that may flow from bringing together security and aid agencies.
Donors need to learn to work ‘in’ and ‘on’ conflict instead of ‘around’ conflict. They need to:
- Select the ‘benign neglect’ option only after due consideration of the humanitarian and security consequences of inaction.
- Adopt realism, a holistic and long term perspective, adequate fiduciary, social and environmental safeguards, involvement of reform minded actors and innovative approaches that nurture civil society and private sector participation.
- Mainstream ‘conflict sensitivity’ criteria in macroeconomic policy advice, fiscal policy and public expenditure reforms, poverty reduction strategy papers and public expenditure reviews.
- Privilege diplomacy, private investment, trade and security assistance over aid in donor engagement in fragile states but provide sufficient aid to make the other instruments effective.
- Accord greater priority to conflict prevention, post conflict assistance and security sector reform in donor country engagement strategies.
- Replicate the special funding pools pioneered by Utstein. Reconsider aid allocation principles and practices to take account of security considerations.
