Aid Effectiveness in Fragile States
Applying the Principles
The following provides some basic guidance to staff who are thinking about how to promote the principles in a relationship with a partner in a fragile state or situation.
Take context as the starting point
- How well does NZAID understand the context? Is there a shared understanding of the context with the partner government, other NZ government departments, other donors and international actors?
- Is there a conflict analysis that NZAID accepts? Should NZAID consider undertaking a conflict analysis (or political economy analysis) on its own or with others?
Ensure all activities do no harm
In order to ensure activities do no harm, it is essential to have a thorough understanding of the context (including historic, economic, political, ecological, and socio-cultural aspects).
- What are the expected impacts of the proposed activity? What unexpected impacts might there be?
- How will you monitor both expected and unexpected impacts?
- What management mechanisms can you put in place to receive monitoring reports, and consider changes to the activity in order to minimise negative effects and maximise positive effects?
Focus on state-building as the central objective
The fragile states “approach” is much more state-centric than other frameworks, such as the human security framework. It assumes that helping build stronger state-based institutions will help reduce fragility as a result of competing non-state institutions.
- Have you mapped the stakeholders and actors and their relationships?
- How does the government own the activity? How will the activity interface with stakeholders? Will they see a donor face or a government face?
- What are the lines of accountability for the activity? What impacts might the activity have on perceptions of the government’s legitimacy?
- Have you undertaken a capacity analysis? Is a capacity development plan part of the activity?
- If capacity is currently so limited that the Activity will be implemented in parallel to government, how will it be subsumed in future? Can you ensure that the modality and activity management mechanisms are “shadow aligned” with state systems?
Prioritise prevention
- Do you have a good (and shared) understanding of the causes of conflict (structural, proximate and triggers)?
- Does the activity strengthen local capacities to manage conflict?
- Are you able to act quickly to support conflict prevention measures or adapt your intervention in order to minimise the risk of conflict?
Recognise the links between, political, security and development objectives
Particularly in fragile states, links between the political, security and development spheres are particularly important. Whole of government coherence is vital. It may be necessary to think through the sequencing of goals and objectives (eg in the short term peace building objectives may take priority over development objectives).
- Do you have a good (and shared) understanding of the context amongst all players?
- Do you have a shared understanding of priorities and sequencing?
- How can you strengthen key relationships between NZAID and other departments? Are information flows between departments adequate?
Promote non discrimination as a basis for inclusive and stable societies
Real or perceived discrimination are often destabilising factors in fragile states. It is important that service delivery and state-building strategies in particular, address discrimination.
- Who is the target group of the proposed activity? Who is excluded?
- Have you examined the different impacts of your proposed activity on stakeholder groups (eg women, children, young people, ethnic groups, ex-militants etc)?
- How will the proposed activity be perceived by various groups? Will it be seen as reducing or increasing inequalities?
- If the intervention targets a particular group (eg ex-combatants), have you ensured sufficient measures are in place to manage perceptions of privilege or bias?
Align with local priorities in different ways in different contexts
- What local planning processes exist? Do these have legitimacy? Can NZAID align with these? If full alignment is not possible, what is the next best option?
- Have you aligned with local priorities and systems to the maximum extent possible?
- Where capacity does not exist to undertake planning and prioritisation locally, have your consultation processes been effective and sufficient?
- Is your activity designed so that it builds on pockets of capacity?
- If your activity must be managed in parallel to weak local institutions, have you designed it in such a way as to enable it to be easily absorbed at a later date?
Agree on practical co-ordination mechanisms between international actors
- How can you support the partner government to coordinate donors?
- If the partner government is not in a position to take the lead, what practical donor coordination mechanisms can be put in place? How can you ensure partners do not feel excluded by these processes?
- How can you work with others to develop shared understandings of the context and priorities? Can analysis be shared? Are their opportunities for a division of labour?
- How can you work with others to minimise the burden on the partner government?
Act fast…but stay engaged long enough to give success a chance
- Do you have effective processes in place for information flows between post and Wellington, and mechanisms for speedy decision making?
- Are you thinking long-term enough? Are the timeframes for meeting objectives realistic (eg at least 10 years for capacity development, and longer for meaningful state-building)? Are you able to lock in commitments beyond the three year multi-year appropriation?
- Is the whole-of-government process thinking in the long-term, or stuck on short term crisis management?
- Are you able to communicate realistic timeframes and objectives to Ministers? How will you ensure that short-term setbacks don’t result in decisions that will have negative effects on the achievement of long-term goals?
Avoid pockets of exclusion (“aid orphans”)
- Do you have a good understanding of poverty? (eg geographic areas, particular groups)
Are key priority sectors being supported adequately by donors? Are their opportunities for a more effective division of labour?