International Development CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Saferworld

1. Saferworld welcomes the International Development Committee’s decision to conduct an inquiry on the post-2015 global development agenda, as well as its three recent inquiries on development in conflict-affected and fragile states. As an international conflict prevention organisation with more than 20 years’ experience implementing peacebuilding activities on the ground, we focus this submission on the need to include commitments to address the causes of conflict and fragility in the post-2015 framework.

2. Saferworld has identified seven issue areas as being crucial for inclusion in the new framework if it is to make real progress in achieving sustainable peace and development, which are outlined in this submission.

3. Alongside this submission Saferworld has submitted its recent briefing, Approaching post-2015 from a peace perspective,1 which further illustrates the arguments made here, as well as Bringing peace into the post-2015 development framework,2 a joint statement signed by 56 civil society organisations from more than 21 countries which supports the inclusion of peacebuilding measures in the new framework.

Lessons learned from the adoption of the International Development Targets and the MDGs: how effective has the MDG process been to date?

4. The MDGs have been extremely influential in defining international development priorities since their adoption. While significant progress has been made toward achieving certain goals in some contexts, it is notable that no low-income conflict-affected or fragile state has achieved a single MDG.3

5. One and a half billion people live in areas affected by conflict, fragility and violence4 and the UN Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda has recognised that “violence and fragility have become the largest obstacle to meeting the MDGs”.5 In situations of fragility and conflict, the MDG framework has been of limited relevance for two main reasons:

Firstly, it failed to recognise that structural weaknesses and challenges faced by both state and civil society actors in these contexts meant that it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to address the problems that the MDGs were designed to tackle.

Secondly, as we elaborate further below, the framework failed to focus on the relevant areas of engagement critical to ensuring a transition out of conflict and fragility towards sustainable development.

6. Given this reality it is unsurprising that the UN System Task Team has identified peace and security as one of “four key dimensions of a more holistic approach” to be included in the post-2015 framework.6

The content of future goals: what would be a good set of global goals?

7. If the post-2015 framework is to succeed where the existing MDG framework failed and make real development progress in conflict-affected and fragile states, Saferworld believes that it must include measures to address the underlying causes of conflict and fragility. While the drivers of conflict vary between contexts, there are a number of relevant characteristics which are common to societies which have made successful transitions out of conflict and fragility.

8. As set out in the briefing Approaching post-25 from a peace perspective, Saferworld has examined six well-known and credible peacebuilding frameworks and found that there is a significant degree of consensus across those frameworks on the factors which need to be addressed in order to prevent and reduce violence and fragility. However, these factors are almost entirely absent from the existing MDGs.7

9. The six frameworks include the World Bank’s World Development Report 2011 and the Institute for Economics and Peace’s Structures of Peace framework,8 which represent significant pieces of research drawing on large datasets; the Peacebuilding and Statebuilding Goals9 developed through the International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding, which have the backing of a range of important stakeholders in the post-2015 debate; the UN Development Programme’s human security framework,10 which laid the foundations for much of the subsequent policy that has been developed in this area; the UK Department for International Development’s peacebuilding and statebuilding approach;11 and the programming framework for international peacebuilding NGO International Alert,12 offering a practitioners’ perspective. While each framework uses different language to frame these issues, seven main issue areas (A-G below) are prioritised by most or all of the frameworks. Of these seven issues, only the first one is included in the existing MDG framework:

(a) All social groups have access to decent livelihoods

10. The need to achieve “full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people” is a target under MDG1. Most of the frameworks emphasise the importance of access to jobs being equal across social groups.

(b) All social groups can participate in the decisions that affect society

11. While different societies are likely to choose different models of government to meet their specific needs, most peace practitioners agree that participatory decision-making is a quality that can help all societies achieve sustainable peace. For example, International Alert’s programming framework states that societies in which all social groups participate in decision-making “more resilient to violence than one in which decisions tend to be in the hands of a particular category.”13

(c) All social groups have access to fair, accountable social service delivery

12. While the MDGs have a great deal to say on the delivery of services—for example, access to primary education and healthcare—it is well recognised that they do not satisfactorily address how fairly access to these services is distributed. DFID captures the problem well, pointing out that, “Service delivery can help improve state-society relations, but if handled poorly, it can sow discord and discrimination”.14

(d) All social groups have equal access to justice

13. Access to justice is mentioned by all six frameworks as a key component of a peaceful society. For examples, DFID argues that states must “establish laws and rules that govern the behaviour of the state and society” in a fair and transparent way, such that “the law is applied fairly and without discrimination, whether by state or non-state justice systems, and there is mutual agreement on the rights and obligations shared by society and the state.”15

(e) All social groups feel secure

14. Security—whether of “persons”, “people”, “citizens” or “communities”—is cited by several of the frameworks as a key element of conflict prevention. For example, the World Bank argues that provision of security “cuts to the heart of the government’s obligation to care for its citizens”.16

(f) All states are able to manage revenues and perform core functions effectively and accountably

15. The different frameworks examined here present different views of what core state functions are needed to build and maintain peace, such as financial and macroeconomic management. While there seems to be agreement that certain standards of good governance need to be applied, a wider discussion is needed on what this should entail.

(g) The international community is effectively addressing the external stresses that lead to conflict

16. For example, the World Bank identifies illicit flows of drugs, arms, and money, transnational crime, migration, volatile commodity markets and transnational ideological threats as some of the external factors which have the potential to increase fragility,17 while the Structures of Peace framework finds that “countries with positive external relations are more peaceful and also tend to be politically stable”.18 Saferworld would also include climate change and a number of other environmental issues among the external stresses that must be addressed by the framework.

17. Saferworld believes that, if the new framework is to successfully contribute to sustainable peace and development, the seven factors outlined above should be explored and included.

18. The existing frameworks examined suggest that the factors that lead to peace are mutually reinforcing, meaning that the post-2015 framework must be truly holistic, and avoid omitting any of these key factors. Therefore, although some of the targets included in the existing MDGs can make a contribution toward these aims, a more comprehensive approach is needed. For example, reversing the loss of natural resources (included in MDG7) may be key to reducing the drivers of conflict in particular contexts, but the framework must also address other external stresses such as economic shocks and migration. Similarly, gender equality (MDG3) is increasingly recognised as contributing to building peaceful societies, and Saferworld supports the Gender and Development Network’s submission to this inquiry in calling for a strong focus on gender equality to be retained in the new framework. However it must also address other dimensions of inequality such that all social groups participate in and benefit from development.

Targets: was the MDG “target-based” approach a success? Should it be retained? How should progress be measured?

19. Goals, targets and indicators should be part of a new framework. The UN System Task team suggests that the framework “should include separate goals related to peace and security and a clear, concise and measurable target on violence, which can be measured through indicators on battle-related deaths and intentional homicide.”19 However, Saferworld would argue that the framework should go beyond measuring levels of violence, which are a symptom of conflict, to focus on measuring progress toward addressing the primary causes of conflict around the world, as outlined above. It may not be necessary or logical to have a separate goal on peace. Saferworld believes it would be equally possible for a set of targets that address the drivers of conflict to be integrated cross-sectorally within a range of targets designed to address other development priorities and global challenges. This would help to underline the fact that these targets are important for all countries, not just those which are currently experiencing armed conflict.

The coverage of future goals: should they be for developing countries only or should progress be monitored in all countries?

20. The Arab Spring and the Eurozone crisis have reminded us that all societies have the potential to become fragile and have conflict dynamics that need to be constructively managed. Many of the seven issue areas which Saferworld has presented for inclusion in the new framework—such as participation in decision-making, access to justice and decent livelihoods—present challenges not only for those countries classed as “developing” but also for “developed” countries. Furthermore, they are valuable not only for countries which are currently experiencing armed conflict: addressing these issues is vital to preventing countries from falling into conflict and instability in the first place, as the 2008 election violence in Kenya demonstrated. Recognising that peace and security, development and human rights are “interlinked and mutually reinforcing”, the UN System Task Team states that, “This applies not only in areas affected by armed conflict, where the restoration of peace and security is an overriding imperative, but in all societies, including those with significant levels and often multiple and hidden forms of violence and injustice.”20 In addition, while progress on these seven issue areas can be seen as a means to preventing violent conflict, they are also worthy goals in and of themselves.

21. The scope of a new framework should therefore be global, setting out robust standards for all contexts, whereby every country commits to address obstacles to peace and development and whereby the international community addresses global factors fuelling tensions and fragility in-country. It is also important to be able to co-ordinate and monitor progress at the global level against a common framework. The translation of this global framework at country level should remain flexible to allow each society to tailor how it addresses the critical issues and pursues the highest standard of implementation.

The process: are the right voices being heard? What are the opportunities for and constraints to global consensus?

22. Saferworld supports calls by the Beyond 2015 campaign for the process of developing the post-2015 framework to be “open and transparent, participatory, inclusive and responsive to voices and expertise of those directly affected by poverty and injustice.”21 Ensuring that the voices of people in conflict-affected countries are included in the debate may present a particular challenge: for example, those who feel threatened or insecure may be the least able to freely articulate their needs in national or international policy debates. Access to information, communications and other infrastructure, education levels and policy capacities all tend to be lower in poor and conflict-affected societies. The post-2015 debate, which focuses on long-term goals, may also seem far removed to communities which are experiencing crisis. However, it is vital that every effort is made to involve poor and marginalised people—including women, men, boys and girls—from conflict-affected societies in policy dialogue. This dialogue will need to be designed and supported differently in different contexts, as local factors will inevitably have an impact on the process.

23. With regard to the opportunities and constraints on reaching a global consensus, a large number of policy communities are already bringing a vast range of demands to the post-2015 debate. It is important that the conversation does not become a tug of war between different camps, but rather a collaborative search for a shared vision of what will deliver real and lasting improvements in the lives of the world’s people.

24. Negotiations on the post-2015 framework will involve governments, international institutions, civil society organisations and the public. These actors will bring a staggering array of perspectives, priorities and interests to the debate. There is a clear risk that the post-2015 framework will be overly shaped by political and institutional interests, not least when it comes to politically-sensitive issues such as conflict, governance, security and justice. The design of the process will be critical to prevent this from happening. Saferworld suggests that one way to reduce this risk is to focus the discussion on examining the evidence of what works in practice. While ultimately the framework will need to be agreed based on political consensus, the more closely this consensus reflects the best available evidence, the more effective it will be in improving the lives of the world’s poorest people.

25. In an increasingly multipolar world, a wider range of actors than ever before is involved in shaping the global development agenda. Beyond OECD members, actors such as China, India, Brazil, Russia and South Africa, Arab nations, the G-77 group of developing countries, and the g7+ group of fragile states all have crucial roles to play. The evidence base used by those promoting peacebuilding to influence the debate on conflict must therefore engage with their experience as development actors and countries with their own peacebuilding experiences. There is much to be learned from doing so. Ultimately, as the negotiations at the High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan in 2011 illustrated, the buy-in of emerging donors will be one of the most important determinants of the strength and the results of the post-2015 framework. Emerging donors also have significant influence with numerous other governments with whom consensus will need to be forged if a genuinely progressive framework is to be achieved.

26. At the same time as examining existing frameworks that draw on evidence and experience, it is important to consider what is politically feasible. For example, while a number of states and multilateral institutions are committed to advocating for the Peacebuilding and Statebuilding Goals to be included in the post-2015 framework,22 they are unlikely to receive full backing from certain countries and agencies in their current form: some governments and multilateral agencies are unlikely to favour a goal framed in the language of “legitimate politics”; whether they might accept a goal promoting inclusive decision-making and dialogue in some form remains to be seen. Goals reflecting commitments to achieving ambitious outcomes in the issue areas underlying the Peacebuilding and Statebuilding Goals should not be viewed as an optional extra: these issues are at the heart of whether development begins to work for the poorest people in the world.

27. Early engagement will be crucial to ensure that obstacles to consensus (and their nature—are they disagreements on terminology, policy or related only to capacity) are identified early and can be overcome. The UK and EU must take responsibility for active diplomacy to bring in the sceptics, as well as supporting the capacity of civil society organisations to play their potential role in this effort.

Financing global goals: are new mechanisms needed?

28. It is not clear whether the post-2015 framework will deal with the mechanisms for financing the fulfilment of global development priorities. If it does, policymakers should be wary of the implications that the choice of different financing mechanisms has for conflict and fragility. Financing mechanisms need to be tailored to each context based on analysis of conflict and governance dynamics and awareness of the political consequences of using different models.

29. For example, delivering consistent budget support to fragile states, regardless of their behaviour, may in some cases actively discourage positive transitions from occurring or actively exacerbate those conflicts. In the on-going tragedy of the Somali conflict, international backing for a government with low levels of legitimacy has fuelled violent rejection both of the imposed state and its international backers. Any new financing mechanism agreed post-2015 must enable timely support to the efforts of countries committed to making positive progress, but at the same time avoid strengthening the hand of those political actors whose policies lead directly to violence, insecurity and conflict. Donors should require clear indications of political commitment to achieve peace before committing to alignment and use of country systems in fragile and conflict-affected contexts. Financing mechanisms should be set up to ensure that aid passes through non-budgetary channels when fundamental peacebuilding and statebuilding principles are being ignored, and to ensure that in all circumstances the societal capacity to demand inclusive, responsive, accountable and fair governance is supported.

October 2012