Peacebuilding and Statebuilding Goals: Looking Beyond the MDGs | CIDP | Canadian International Development Platform

URL:

http://cidpnsi.ca/blog/peacebuilding-and-statebuilding-goals-looking-beyond-the-mdgs/ (Not available)

Replay URL:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140923003213/http://cidpnsi.ca/blog/peacebuilding-and-statebuilding-goals-looking-beyond-the-mdgs/ 🔗

Host:

cidpnsi.ca

Collection:

NGOs

Collection Id:

4666

Crawl Date:

2014-09-23T00:32:13Z

Source File:

ARCHIVEIT-4666-NONE-3595-20140922235312197-00000-wbgrp-crawl058.us.archive.org-6441.warc.gz

General Content Type:

html

Content Language:

en

Length:

34480

Link Hosts:

aideffectiveness.org, bwpi.manchester.ac.uk, cic.nyu.edu, cidpnsi.ca, facebook.com, g7plus.org, nsi-ins.ca, odi.org.uk, oecd.org, post2015.org, siteresources.worldbank.org, twitter.com, un.org, and web.worldbank.org

This page links to:

aideffectiveness.org; cidpnsi.ca; facebook.com; g7plus.org; manchester.ac.uk; nsi-ins.ca; nyu.edu; odi.org.uk; oecd.org; post2015.org; twitter.com; un.org, and worldbank.org

Content:

EN | FR Home About Events What We Like Analysis Data Sources Connect Contact Team Customized Solutions Blog Archives Peacebuilding and Statebuilding Goals: Looking Beyond the MDGs by Alastair McKechnie   States affected by fragility present some of the greatest development challenges.  Around 1.5 billion people live in fragile and conflict affected states (FCAS) and 70% of these countries have been in conflict since 1989.  No fragile state has yet achieved a single Millennium Development Goal (MDG), or is likely to meet MDGs by the 2015 deadline.   State fragility is characterized by institutional weaknesses that prevent countries from meeting the expectations of their citizens, particularly in providing basic services like security and justice and developing a shared, inclusive national identity.  The risk of armed violence is a key feature of state fragility, a consequence of the inability of the state and society to respond to internal or external political, security or economic shocks.  Armed violence not only kills, maims and creates humanitarian disasters, it also wipes out past investments in both physical assets and institutions which took decades to build.   A New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States was agreed between the g7+ group of FCAS and most of their international partners at the 2011 High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan.  The New Deal sets out a framework for more effective international engagement in FCAS.  Importantly, it contains five Peacebuilding and Statebuilding Goals (PSGs) to guide country and partner work in fragile states:   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   The PSGs are intended primarily for fragile states to set country level targets for their partners to support.  The goals should also allow for fragile states to gauge their transition from fragility in relation to their peers, international partners to demonstrate accountability to their internal constituencies, and at the global level, the determination of how effectively the international effort is addressing fragility.  The New Deal links the PSGs to achieving the MDGs in fragile states, recognizing that the MDGs are not sufficient.  Without the basics set out in the PSGs, such as security, justice and basic political accountability, development is difficult and major advances in the reduction of poverty is next to impossible.   While the PSGs grew out of the International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding, an OECD-DAC facilitated process, where governments of fragile states have moved to the fore.  Fragile states organized themselves into a coordinated group, the g7+, which gradually expanded to around 17 countries, and became the main negotiating partner for the DAC countries on the New Deal.  The g7+ countries met among themselves and with their civil society counterparts several times a year to agree on PSGs, and had access to the DAC analysis of state fragility, the 2011 World Development Report Conflict, Security and Development and specialist advisers to ensure that the PSGs had a strong empirical base.  Critically, the PSGs were a g7+ proposal presented in Busan.  So while initiated through an OECD-DAC process, as were the MDGs, which have been heavily criticized for being donor-driven, the PSGs have broader ownership and buy-in from developing countries, as well as the 20 DAC countries and six international organizations that signed onto the New Deal.  A set of indicators for each goal, which will enable progress to be tracked at the country and global levels, are under development and expected to be announced soon.   Moving forward, a key issue will be how the PSGs will relate to the global goals that replace the MDGs after 2015.  This was a topic of discussion at the 2nd g7+ Ministerial Retreat in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, from 13-14 November 2012. The exclusion of peace and security in the MDG framework has been identified as an important gap, and it is likely that the g7+ will want the PSGs included in the new MDGs, given the considerable focus that the MDGs have given to global and country development efforts and their advocacy potential for mobilizing global opinion and resources.  This might be done through an overarching goal based on reducing the threat of violence, under which the PSGs could be incorporated as sub-goals.   Some PSGs are set to be more controversial than others. The PSGs on ‘economic foundations’ and ‘revenue and services’ seem consistent with the development objectives of most UN member states.  More controversial will be the PSG on ‘justice’, which seeks justice outcomes, rather than particular institutional arrangements, consistent with international human rights agreements and ‘rule of law’.  The PSG on ‘legitimate politics’ could be the most problematic, as some member states might interpret this as impinging on their sovereignty, or a prescription of particular institutional forms such as liberal democracy.  The transition from fragility to resilience is a long political process and domestic legitimacy can be defined to cover a range of institutional arrangements.  There may be more common ground than at first apparent, particularly as inequalities between groups are often drivers of conflict.   The PSGs are a good starting point for developing goals on securing peace and building resilient institutions in the post-MDG framework.  They were created by an inter-governmental group consisting mostly of fragile states, and agreed at an international forum that included most partner countries and international organizations.  They are grounded in evidence of fragility and practical experience in peace building and state building.  Importantly, Emilia Pires, the current chair of the G7+ group and Finance Minister of Timor-Leste, has recently been appointed to the UN Secretary General’s High-level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post 2015 Development Agenda, co-chaired by Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the President of Liberia, another country that has been affected by recent conflict, with the President of Indonesia and the British Prime Minister.   Together with recognition by the UN of the Busan New Deal, this augurs well for ensuring peacebuilding and statebuilding are captured in the post-2015 framework.  This is critical for ensuring that the post-2015 goals are fit-for-purpose in 2015 and beyond.         Alastair McKechnie is a Distinguished Research Associate at The North-South Institute and a Senior Research Associate at the Overseas Development Institute in London, UK.  He was Director, Fragile and Conflict-Affected Countries Group at the time of his retirement from the World Bank in 2010.  Mr. McKechnie has worked as an adviser on the Bank’s World Development Report for 2011, assisted the g7+ group in preparing for the High Level Forum on Development Effectiveness, is a member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Fragile States, and is a member of the Atlantic Council Task Force on Afghanistan. Pingback: Fragile states on the agenda at Monrovia « Post2015.org – what comes after the MDGs? 09 December 2012 by CIDP Guest Blogger in Fragility1 Comment Tags: fragile states, IDCW, Post-2015 Next: Will the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation Deliver? Previous: A Recipe for Full Employment in Africa Categories Aid (25) Data (10) Finance and Capital Flows (1) Fragility (6) Gender (1) IDCW (18) Investment (2) Migration (1) post-2015 (5) Think Tanks (3) Trade (1) Transparency and Accountability (1) About The Canadian International Development Platform (CIDP) is a unique data and analytical platform on Canada’s engagement with the developing world. The CIDP is hosted by the North-South Institute, Canada’s only independent development policy think-tank. Connect Follow Us on Twitter Join Us on Facebook Stay up-to-date via RSS Contact The North-South Institute 100 Argyle Avenue Suite 200 Ottawa, Ontario K2P 1B6 Canada Telephone: (613) 241-3535 Fax: (613) 241-7435 Email: abhushan@nsi-ins.ca Canadian International Development Platform © The North-South Institute