inevitable. Famine usually means a combination of drought,
poverty, and, above all, conflict.
The impact of conflict on development is stark: not one
low-income country affected by conflict has achieved a
single MDG. Statistics show that children living in a country
affected by conflict are twice as likely to be hungry and nearly
three times as likely not to be attending school as children in
a low-income country that is free of conflict.15
When the Paris Declaration was adopted in 2005, more
than half of the world’s poor people lived in countries that
were low-income but stable countries. In 2010, that figure had
dropped to just 10 percent. The majority of the world’s poor
people now live in middle-income and/or fragile states.16 In
light of this shift, the importance of promoting community
stability and resilience—even in countries like Somalia—
cannot be overemphasized.
The OECD defines fragile states as those failing to
provide basic services to poor people because they are
unwilling or unable to do so. In April 2007, donors from
OECD countries committed to 10 Principles for Good
International Engagement in Fragile States and Situations.17
The principles go beyond development co-operation to
consider other aspects of international support in these
settings, including peace-building, state-building, security
and peacekeeping, and whole-of-government approaches.
They reflect a growing consensus that fragile states require
responses that are different from those needed in betterperforming, more stable countries. Through the Accra
Agenda for Action, donors and partner countries committed
to monitor the implementation of the fragile states principles
on a voluntary basis. In 2011, this monitoring was carried out
through a dedicated Survey on Monitoring the Principles
for Good International Engagement in Fragile States and
Situations. In 12 of the 13 fragile states taking part, the
survey was combined with the 2011 survey on the Paris
Declaration. These countries include: Burundi, Central
African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic
Republic of Congo, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Liberia, Sierra
Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Timor-Leste and Togo.
Aid is often deemed ineffective in fragile states—which
presents a dilemma since so many poor people live in such
states. Development cooperation in these settings demands
differentiated strategies, tailored to each specific country to
effectively respond to changing circumstances.
Fragile states and conflict affected countries undoubtedly
need aid, but aid delivery should look very different here
than in contexts with stable government institutions. New
mechanisms are needed that recognize the spectrum of risk—
from governments that are well-intentioned but face insecurity
and weak institutions, to those that are more abusive. For
example, community-driven approaches, such as working
through local schools and clinics, have worked successfully
for many years in even the most difficult environments. In
most cases, they are able to operate in areas where other aid
agencies cannot. A good example is the current situation in
Somalia, where local women’s groups have managed to reach
high-risk areas to provide food to starving communities.
The challenge for aid donors is to establish an overall
approach and delivery mechanisms that meet the needs of
fragile states in cost-effective ways; help strengthen and build
Figure 3 Progress on the Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States and Situations
Broadly on-track
Partly on-track
6. Promote non-discrimination as a basis for inclusive and stable societies
7. Align with local priorities in different ways in different contexts
Partly off-track
1. Take control as the starting point
3. Focus on state building as the central objective
4. Prioritize prevention
5. Recognize the links between political, security and development objectives
Off-track
2. Do no harm
8. Agree on practical co-ordination mechanisms between international actors
9. Act fast…but stay engaged long enough to give success a chance
10. Avoid pockets of exclusion
A survey of 13 countries shows that making progress on the Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States and Situations has been particularly challenging.
The engagement of international stakeholders is assessed as being partly or fully off-track for eight out of the 10 principles.
Notes: Broadly on-track: Good progress in implementation of the Fragile States Principles. Partly on-track: Commitment and some progress in implementation. Partly off-track: Commitment but
implementation is insufficient. Off-track: Limited commitment and poor to non-existent implementation.
Source: OECD
www.bread.org
Bread for the World Institute 9