This report is a collection of working papers which were produced for the IDPS to help foster discussion at the four Working Groups that met between November 2010 and May 2011. The recommendations produced from these working papers and the discussions during the Working Groups meetings were used to produce the new Deal for Engagement in Fragile States, the ground-breaking agreement endorsed on 30 November by the g7+ group of fragile states and their development partners at the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, Korea.
These working papers are a valuable resource for all those interested in understanding the origins of the “New Deal” and provide useful inputs to help implementing the “New Deal” commitments.
The first working paper explores the role of political dialogue in peacebuilding and statebuilding within the context of international support. The report reviews experiences with political dialogue in a broad range of countries. Based on this experience it identifies four main types of dialogue, presents preconditions for successful dialogue and proposes key strategic elements of interventions to support effective political dialogue.
The second working paper discusses the inclusion of peacebuilding and statebuilding strategic planning processes in fragile contexts. One of the critical weaknesses in fragile and conflict-affected contexts is that current planning processes largely assume the most important peacebuilding and statebuilding goals, of building consensus around a political settlement and establishing the legitimate authority of the state, have already been met. However, this is rarely the case. Redirecting planning away from a menu of generic best practices towards a process which designs responsive policies that understand and work for the formation of lasting political settlements and legitimate state authority is the key challenge.
The third working paper responds to the demand for guidance on effective support to capacity development in fragile situations. Capacity development support has failed to contribute effectively to institutional transformation and the broader statebuilding agenda. Development partners and partner country representatives should be committed to finding nationally relevant solutions to institutional problems rather than seeking to impose externally derived institutional templates; the aim should be a “good fit” not “best practice”. A pragmatic approach to capacity development is required in fragile situations. A balance should be found between direct engagement for service delivery and facilitating learning and ownership. No choice will accommodate all concerns, so trade-offs need to be managed.
The fourth working paper discusses the use of innovative aid instruments in support of peacebuilding and statebuilding. In most fragile contexts, aid has been provided in the same way as it is in stable countries with the same procedures applying and the same approaches to risk being followed. Consequently, aid—and any benefits from it—has been delivered far too slowly. The failure of donors to take risks in aid delivery has been at the cost of taking much greater and potentially much more expensive risks of renewed conflict. For both fragile states and donors there is a pressing need to break with the past, partial incremental approach to changing how aid is delivered.
