How successfully have the ten Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States and Situations (FSPs) been implemented? How can the international community improve its contribution to development in fragile states? This report presents the results of the Second Monitoring Survey on the implementation of the FSPs in thirteen countries. It finds that most aid actors are neither set up to meet the specific challenges posed by fragile situations, nor systematically able to translate commitments made by their headquarters into country-level changes. While efforts have been made to deliver on agreed commitments, implementation has been mixed and appears not to have taken full account of the implications of the FSPs on the ground.
In fragile and conflict-affected countries, which are home to more than 1.5 billion people and farthest away from achieving the MDGs, poorly conceived involvement can do more harm than good. In such countries, challenges such as poor security, weak governance, limited administrative capacity, chronic humanitarian crises, persistent social tensions, violence or the legacy of civil war require responses different from those applied in more stable situations.
In 2007, to guide interventions in such countries, development partners committed themselves to the ten FSPs. However, the application of the FSPs is seriously off-track in Comoros, the Central African Republic, Chad, Haiti and Somalia. In Sierra Leone and Timor-Leste, implementation is generally on-track. In Guinea-Bissau, Burundi, Liberia, South Sudan and Togo development partners have made efforts to translate FSPs into practice but results have yet to be seen. There are shortfalls in the application of the following FSPs:
- Take context as a starting point: international actors still tend to apply ‘pre-packaged’ programming rather than tailoring assistance to local realities.
- Focus on statebuilding as the central objective: approaches have not moved beyond ‘technical’ institution building to support government institutions fostering state-society relations.
- Prioritise prevention: Effective prevention combines support for early warning systems with swift and flexible early response mechanisms and regular evaluations. This seldom happens.
- Recognise the links between security, political and development objectives: links are unevenly reflected in country strategies and there is little analysis of the trade-offs between political, security and development objectives.
- Do no harm: issues such as the brain drain, salary differences for internationally employed staff, and reliance on international NGOs for service delivery are not addressed. Inadequate man-agement of aid flows continues to be harmful.
- Act fast but stay engaged long enough to give success a chance: interventions often prioritise short-term objectives and aid remains unpredictable.
- Avoid pockets of exclusion: the uneven geographic distribution of aid is a significant concern.
Development partners need to make a more focused effort to ensure that the adoption of policies at headquarters translates into behavioural change on the ground. This requires:
- Greater political efforts to reform their field policies and practices to ensure they can respond faster and with greater flexibility.
- A move beyond traditional development frameworks, such as poverty reduction strategies, which do not offer a basis for effective action in fragile states.
- Consideration of the political realities and political economies of fragile states when defining development outcomes and priorities.
- Recognition that the FSPs also provide a powerful tool to improve country-level dialogue and engagement.
