In December, 38 countries signed up to a ‘New Deal’ for engagement in fragile states, which includes a commitment to prioritise five peacebuilding and statebuilding goals.
Sophie Haspeslagh, Conciliation Resources’ Policy Analyst, has been closely involved in the process leading up to, and at, the Busan High-Level Forum where these commitments were made.
Here, she reflects on some of the things she has learned from the International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding and offers some thoughts as to where it might go next.
***
The challenges of conflict and fragility
Countries affected by conflict and fragility pose particular challenges for external actors who want to support development and help build peace. Conflict and the threat of conflict disrupt the everyday life of a country. This hampers vital activities like education, health care, agriculture, economic development, and good governance.
The 10 principles for good international engagement in fragile situations were developed by donors in 2007 in an attempt to respond to some of these challenges. If you look at these principles they make a lot of sense:
- Do no harm
- Avoid pockets of exclusion
- Recognise the links between political, security and development objectives.
But the practical impact of these principles was always limited as they were developed by donors, for donors and not with the countries to which they related.
The International Dialogue on Statebuilding and Peacebuilding
Established in 2008, the International Dialogue on Statebuilding and Peacebuilding was the first real attempt at establishing an actual dialogue between donors and governments of conflict-affected and fragile states on what works and what doesn’t when it comes to international support for peacebuilding and statebuilding.
For the first time, the discussion included ways in which we could transform relationships between donor and recipient countries: it focused on new ways of engaging in these specific contexts.
Along with other civil society actors I’ve been involved in this dialogue. This has meant gathering views from our partners (ranging from Fiji to Liberia), and feeding these perspectives and insights into discussions during international dialogue meetings through presentations and active lobbying. During this dialogue, we, as civil society, have been pushing for several key points:
- Firstly, for the inclusion of more local voices in the process. The process often remained very much an intergovernmental dialogue. What made me uncomfortable at times was that it ended up being mainly Northern-based civil society organisations who were involved, due to a lack of time and resources as the pace of the dialogue sped-up in the approach to Busan.
- Secondly, that peacebuilding approaches are key for effective statebuilding. The only way to have more effective and responsive institutions that are capable of adequately addressing conflict is to focus on inclusion and participation.
- Thirdly, that constructive state–society relations are at the heart of successful peacebuilding and statebuilding. In the end, we did manage to get this recognised as a key principle in the vision of the New Deal.
I put a lot of energy into this process; it was frustrating at times when we felt our voices were not being heard but exhilarating when we did get a breakthrough. We quickly learnt how essential it was to get a number of key governments from the North and South on board ahead of meetings to pick up and run with our ideas.
The outcome: The New Deal
The key outcome of this dialogue was the agreement on a set of five peacebuilding and statebuilding goals that form the essence of the New Deal for engagement in fragile states, adopted by 38 countries and institutions during the Fourth High-level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, South Korea. The goals are:
- Legitimate Politics – Foster inclusive political settlements and conflict resolution
- Security – Establish and strengthen people’s security
- Justice – Address injustices and increase people’s access to justice
- Economic Foundations – Generate employment and improve livelihoods
- Revenues and Services – Manage revenue and build capacity for accountable and fair service delivery.
These goals represent a landmark agreement between aid donor and aid recipient countries which explicitly says that aid in conflict-affected and fragile states should focus more explicitly on supporting peace. They resonate with our experience of working in conflict-affected contexts.
I believe they are the right goals – however that’s not to say that they’re perfect.
For starters, I wished the first goal had kept its original name of ‘Political dialogue’ as it reflects more accurately the difficult process of moving towards and inclusive political settlement.
Also, we fought really hard to get the word ‘people’ in the definition of security so that security isn’t measured as counting how many more arms or police there are on the street but it also takes on board how people living in these contexts feel. For example, how safe does a woman trader feel when she crosses the Liberian–Sierra Leonean border to sell foodstuff or soap?
For the New Deal to be the Real Deal
As with any international agreement, getting signatures on paper is only the first step. The real challenge now remains in implementing this ‘New Deal’ and the commitments it contains. I think there are three key challenges:
1. Real ownership
What is understood by ‘country ownership’ is key. This notion comes from the spirit and goals of the Paris Declaration. Aid recipient countries are urged to take ownership of development policies and aid activities in their country.
The challenge now is for this ownership and dialogue to go beyond governments and engage the people in these conflict-affected contexts.
The only way the New Deal between aid donor and aid recipient can work is if it is based on a 'new deal' between authorities and local populations living in conflict-affected and fragile situations.
All the governments involved in the process have pledged to do their own fragility assessment. But in assessing whether ‘their’ countries are fragile or not, governments need to reach out to find out what ordinary people think.
We are just completing an 18-month project supporting participatory conflict analysis in 18 different contexts.
Bringing these views together is a crucial part of developing a country-owned and -led plan towards peace and sustainable development.
2. Implementing the New Deal in practice
A number of countries have nominated themselves to pilot the implementation of the New Deal in partnership with key donors. The pilot countries are:
- Afghanistan
- Central African Republic
- Democratic Republic of Congo
- Liberia
- Sierra Leone
- South Sudan
- Timor-Leste.
Donors and governments in these countries need to change the way they work. And civil society needs to be able to hold them to account.
Though the New Deal recognises the role of women, youth and marginalised groups as key actors for peace and enshrines state–society relations as an essential component in peacebuilding and statebuilding, most of these people remain unaware of the New Deal.
In order to be able to hold their governments and international actors to account, people need to know what to measure them against and be able to judge whether these commitments are really going to add up to more peace and development on the ground.
At the end of March 2012 a group of civil society organisations met in Nairobi to start doing just that. We supported Harold, one of our partners from the Liberia Democratic Institute, to participate.
Harold said that since his return to Liberia he has already contacted the government Ministers who signed up to the New Deal. He thinks the five Peacebuilding and Statebuilding goals are useful:
These [goals] then become the foundation on which we can hold the Liberian government to account.
Harold, Liberian Democratic Institute
3. Integrating peace and security issues into the post-2015 framework
The UN Millennium Development Goals have formed the blueprint for international efforts towards ending extreme poverty. These goals will expire in 2015, by which time on current progress no low-income conflict-affected country will have achieved a single one of these goals.
Given that projected outcome, there's an important question that must be addressed:
Has the international community's focus been misdirected?
Measuring factors like health, education and sanitation is important. But my message to the panel, chaired by David Cameron, which will be reviewing these Millennium Goals is that it urgently needs to incorporate peace, governance, justice and security related goals into this new framework.
There are no quick fixes. As last year’s World Development Report highlighted, building peace takes time – a generation or more in their estimation.
However the five peacebuilding and statebuilding goals offer an important opportunity to set conflict-affected countries on the road to recovery. With these as the basic foundations of a society, people are in a better position to call for and expect their human rights to be fulfilled and to receive a full range of basic services.
The sooner the process of applying the peacebuilding and statebuilding goals begins in earnest, the sooner people can see the benefits in their day-to-day lives.