Fragility and Conflicts Kornelia Kiss Fragility and Crisis

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 q Conflict is an inherent and legitimate part of social and political life. q Conflict is often a precursor to positive change. q Understanding the causes of conflict: § Motive § Means § Opportunity § Triggers 3

1. What is your understanding of fragility? ØDefinition 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 g 7+ – 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 Ø -building inclusive political settlements, Ø -security, Ø -justice, Ø -jobs, Ø -good management of resources, and Ø -accountable and fair service delivery. " 5

6

Linkages between Fragility and Conflict? Ø Conflict as a symptom of fragility symptom Ø Conflict as a cause of fragility cause Ø Conflict as a consequence of fragility consequence 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 Ø Done by the nationals of the countries- only! Ø 5 days workshop usually, but need long time for validation Conflict analysis Ø 2 day workshop with DEVCO EAAS and acedemics (Political Economy Analysis- discontinued in its current form) Ø Deeper, can take 3 -4 months, done by international consultants asking a lot of questions 19

Why to do things differently? Ø "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 Ø - Fragile states, grouped in the g 7+ and Donor community - set an International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding Ø - 4 th 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. Afghanistan 2. Central African 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 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 done- compact 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 '13 - situation? Timor Leste Australia, (+EU offered) Fragility assessment done Somalia EU +NW: financial 1 st New Deal compact endorsed, fragility assessment ongoing 25 Chad UNDP active

New Deal Pilot countries and other g 7+ member countries Colour coding: New deal Pilot countries, Possible New Deal Pilot Countries, Other New Deal countries (members of g 7+) 26

Ø 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 2. Rebuild &reform Phase 3. Phase 4. Phase 5. Transition Transformation Resilience 2, 2 Inclusive politics Security 1, 9 Justice 1, 5 Economic foundations Revenues&Services 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 Ø 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 Ø 1. 2 Political Processes and Institutions Ø Participation in elections and political processes by region, gender and social groups Ø 1. 3 Societal Relationships Ø 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 Ø -Timely payment of police salaries Ø -Recruitment practices and vetting processes 2. 3 Performance and Responsiveness Ø Level of confidence in police/security (%, disaggregated by gender, region, social 35 group)

Justice Note: examples only, list is not comprehensive Ø 3. 1 Justice Conditions Ø -% of victims who reported crimes to the authorities Ø -Public confidence in the performance of justice systems (formal and customary) including human rights mechanisms Ø 3. 2. Capacity and Accountability of Justice Institutions Ø Prison population in pre-trial detention past the legal limitation Ø 3. 3 Access to Justice Ø Proximity to formal and customary justice institutions to the public (basket indicators) 36

Note: examples only, list is not comprehensive Economic Foundations Ø 4. 1 Productive Resources and Prospects for Growth Ø % of population with access to useable and serviceable transport networks, communication, water and energy (multiple indicators) Ø 4. 2 Jobs, Livelihoods and Private Sector Development Ø % of labour force under- and unemployed (by youth, gender, region) Ø 4. 3 Natural Resource Management Ø Existence and enforcement of regulatory framework 37 for natural resource management

Revenues and Services Ø 5. 1 Revenues Note: examples only, list is not comprehensive Ø State monopoly and capacity to collect and administer tax, customs and fees across the territory Ø Tax revenue as a share of GDP Ø 5. 2 Public Administration Ø Quality of public financial management and internal oversight mechanisms (indicators from PEFA) Ø 5. 3 Service Delivery Ø Distribution of services by region and social group Ø Public satisfaction with service delivery 38

Linkage between g 7+ and Post-2015 Development Agenda g 7+ implement New Deal (piloting) at country level (2012 -2015). Inform the HLP on Post-2015 Development Agenda (2012) Post-2015 Development Agenda ? ? 39

What's new for EU programming and planning ? q Fragility elements taken into account: PEA, conflict analysis, fragility assessments; q PSGs as sectors of intervention; q Flexibility - Additional intervention to the three sectors! q Support to transition compacts or equivalent; q Ensuring synergies: ECHO, IFS, EDF/DCI, CSDP; q Using new tools (EU joint programming, JFDs, etc). 40

Understanding Compacts

What is a New Deal compact? q A simplified, flexible mutual accountability framework: • WHAT are collective priorities? • HOW can these can be delivered? q A commitment by national and international partners to be: • Transparent • Realistic • Compliant q 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? q What are likely risks and opportunities? q q 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 g 7+ 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 • National budgets • Bilateral funding • Multilateral funding • Non-ODA (if relevant) PRIORITIES • Based on available resources 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 Ø 16 th September 2013, signed in Brussels Ø 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) Ø Parts: Ø 1. Priority actions identified along each peace building and state building goals Ø 2. Principles for partnership- mutual accountability partnership with new financial architecture for Somalia Ø 3. monitoring arrangements Ø +Annex: list of actions by PSG 46

The New Deal is an opportunity to… q learn more about the partner country through the fragility assessment; q consolidate partner countries' ownership and leadership; q work with other donors closely and coordinate; q use "tailor made" indicators for fragile states; q 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 Joint analysis Possible synergies/links: Focused on subset of priorities Joint government/donor strategy 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(+) Donor-wide Coordination – with possible division of labour (different Deeper division of labour makes both processes Built upon division of labour/ donor engagements around more effective comparative advantage priorities) Compatible definition of Indicative allocations by priorities and sectors Indicative allocations by sector/donor Timeframe aligned with national Compatible mid-term development plan (3 -5 years) but with 2 -3 years timeframe – timeframes interim, shorter phases, flexible revisited yearly

Entry points Joint Programming and New Deal Ø Potential links in following countries: Afghanistan, Burundi, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan Ø 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" Ø 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 Ø 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 Ø Common actors: DEVCO/ECHO/EEAS, MS Missions, partner country Ø 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? Ø

Aid effectiveness in Joint Programming AND the New Deal as well: P a r t n e r C o u n t r y D o n o r s • Ownership & alignment • Influence • Predictability & • Ability & willingness to do Do. L transparency • Pressure to do everything in • Aid fragmentation • Transaction costs "standalone" • Value for money • Visibility

Ø “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. ” Ø High Level Panel Report 54

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! Ø QUESTIONS? 55