Memorandum submitted by Saferworld
Proposed areas of inquiry for International
Development Committee Inquiry: Co-ordination for aid effectiveness.
THE PARIS
DECLARATION, VIOLENT
CONFLICT AND
AID EFFECTIVENESS
A. Key recommendations
1. Saferworld welcomes the Paris Declaration
on Aid Effectiveness (PD) as a valuable multilateral tool for
promoting aid effectiveness and donor coordination, but the Declaration
does not acknowledge that conflict prevention is a core development
issue.
2. The Third High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness
(HLF 3), to be hosted in Accra by the Government of Ghana on 2-4
September 2008, provides an important opportunity to rectify this.
3. Saferworld believes that donors and development
partners meeting at Accra HLF 3 should:
— Recognise the links between poverty
and violent conflict and agree to ensure that aid is effective
in conflict prevention.
— Agree to conduct joint conflict assessments
where possible.
— Agree to develop joint development
strategies that use these assessments in their design and implementation,
thereby ensuring that development programmes address rather than
aggravate the structural causes of conflict.
B. Summary
1. Aid has the potential to play a positive
role in preventing violent conflict and development assistance
can act as a powerful tool for conflict prevention if it is targeted
to address factors that increase the risk of violence, such as
poverty, poor governance and inequality between groups. The PD
is a welcome international instrument which helps guide and coordinate
donor development assistance and aid delivery to help meet internationally
agreed development commitments, such as the MDGs and the 2005
World Summit Outcome Document.
2. There are concerns, however, that the
principles underpinning the PD risk being undermined if aid delivery
is not implemented in a conflict-sensitive manner. For instance,
well-intentioned development assistance may, in certain contexts,
affect the relative advantage of one ethnic group over another,
or affect access to scarce resources—thereby fuelling tensions
and exacerbating the potential for violent conflict. It is therefore
essential that the PD fully examines the extent to which conflict
issues are being taken into account in its implementation and
promotes well-designed joint projects which are sensitive to the
local context and can have a positive impact on peace and security.
C. Background to the Paris Declaration
3. The PD, signed at the DAC High Level
Forum in February 2005, represents an ambitious reform of the
international aid system, encouraging donors and partner governments
to turn their attention to the important task of improving aid
effectiveness, including in fragile states (see paras 37-39).
4. The implications of such reform are positive
and far-reaching. The PD commits donors to co-ordinate aid flows
so that greater donor harmonisation and alignment is achieved,
thus improving coherence across the various aid modalities and
making aid more effective at combating global poverty and, by
extension, accelerating progress towards meeting the MDGs.
5. The PD is also unique in that it sets
clear targets for both donor and recipient countries with both
mutually accountable to each other. The Declaration acknowledges
that coherence in donor activities is fundamental to designing
effective individual aid programmes and maximising their combined
effectiveness.
6. The principles of Ownership, Harmonisation,
Alignment, Managing for Results and Mutual Responsibility underpin
the commitments enshrined in the PD framework and set out operational
goals designed to promote joint approaches to making aid more
effective. However, the five key principles have implications
which extend beyond aid delivery.
7. For example, while the PD represents
a move towards greater donor alignment and international focus
on improving aid effectiveness, the declaration is weak in that
it fails to integrate security and conflict prevention within
its framework. There is real concern that confining donor efforts
to improving the mechanics of aid delivery will not necessarily
be sufficient to make a real impact on overall development effectiveness
if no attention is paid to security.
D. From aid effectiveness to development
effectiveness: mainstreaming conflict prevention
8. There is now a growing consensus that
conflict is a key obstacle to realising the MDGs and security
from violence is widely recognised as fundamental to reducing
poverty and protecting rights. Of the 34 countries furthest from
reaching the MDGs, 22 are in the midst of—or recovering
from—violent conflict (1). A recent report estimates the
cost of armed conflict to Africa's development to be around $18
billion per year. Compared to peaceful countries, African countries
in conflict have on average 50% more infant deaths, 15% more undernourished
people, life expectancy reduced by five years, 20% more adult
illiteracy, 2.5 times fewer doctors per patient, and 12.4% less
food per person (2).
9. At the same time, it is widely acknowledged
that poverty leads to a higher risk of conflict, yet conflict
in turn drives poverty. Aid has the potential to promote greater
human security by addressing some of the root causes of violent
conflict, such as poverty, inequality and weak institutions. But,
all too often, aid can worsen the risks of violent conflict where
it reinforces tensions between groups or where it undermines accountability
and governance. Aid cannot hope to promote greater stability if
it ignores the root causes or early warning signs of conflict.
Designing and implementing programmes around a good understanding
of the local context is vital to ensuring development programmes
are effective at both poverty reduction and conflict prevention—particularly
as donors increase their investment in conflict-affected and fragile
states.
10. By increasing focus on conflict prevention
and ensuring that donor assistance is conflict-sensitive, the
international donor community can enhance the prospects of meeting
the MDGs. Although conceptual agreement on prevention policy and
practice is emerging, the challenge remains how to operationalise
it. The PD now needs to concentrate efforts on assisting donor
governments to design joined-up approaches which place greater
emphasis on ensuring that aid delivery is planned and delivered
with a clear understanding of the impact these decisions will
have on the ground.
11. For aid effectiveness to translate into
development effectiveness, donor coordination frameworks, such
as the PD, and donor countries undertaking substantial development
activities must also give full prior consideration to the risks
of violent conflict. As a matter of course, joint-conflict assessments
should be conducted to make sure that development programmes are
sensitive to local issues and that they enhance prospects for
peacebuilding.
12. This analysis should also be used for
developing national security and justice sector development, small
arms and other programmes targeted at directly addressing conflict
and security issues, The PD offers a useful mechanism through
which such analysis can be conducted jointly, or shared with other
donors. For example, by factoring human security issues into joint
aid assessments, PD donor signatories can coordinate aid delivery
to both support security and justice sector development programmes
and promote action to address the irresponsible transfer of arms
and the proliferation of small arms within societies.
13. For the most part, the international
community has not done enough to address the development implications
of conflict or, indeed, the conflict implications of aid. International
donor efforts must now look building conflict prevention and human
security considerations into their decisions making processes.
The review of the PD at the forthcoming HLF 3 in Accra is a valuable
opportunity to do just this.
February 2008
NOTES:
(1) Preventing Violent Conflict: DFID
2007.
(2) Africa's missing billions, Iansa,
Oxfam and Saferworld, 2007.
| 
