DFID’s scale-up in ‘fragile’ states and the need to focus on conflict sensitivity

A new independent assessment of the UK Department for International Development’s (DFID) scaled-up investment in ‘fragile’ states highlights that increased funding does not necessarily lead to results in complex environments. The most effective way to promote impact, says Saferworld's Shelagh Daley, is to ensure that whole of government efforts are based on a well-informed context analysis and locally identified needs – and prioritise conflict sensitivity and innovation.

One of the major findings of the new report issued by the UK Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) is the assessment that the complex nature of working in fragile contexts was insufficiently recognised in the early stages of DFID’s large increase in funding to fragile states. This funding nearly doubled from £1.8 billion of bilateral overseas development assistance in 2011-12 to £3.4 billion in 2014-15. The UK’s scaled up approach relied on a key implicit assumption: that increased funding leads to results in complex environments. The report highlights that this is not so simple and recommends that the UK go beyond traditional aid metrics to focus on its effectiveness in supporting lasting peace in all of its work in countries affected by conflict.

Saferworld welcomes the report’s detailed recommendations around improving DFID’s effectiveness and a recognition of the need to think long-term when working in fragile contexts. We support the report’s call to focus on impact as defined by qualitative improvements to long-term prospects for peace – but would push for more serious consideration of the conflict sensitivity of the UK’s work. The report misses an opportunity to reflect on the conflict sensitivity of rapidly scaling up DFID’s spend in fragile contexts, particularly in regards to the ‘do no harm’ principle, which is only briefly touched upon by ICAI. This could be expanded to include an evaluation of the conflict sensitivity of the UK’s economic, diplomatic and security engagement over the period of the scale-up, with a focus on the impact on prospects for peace of aid and non-aid policies alike.

One of the report’s valuable insights is the need for coherent guidance for operating in fragile contexts and a shared understanding of risk as part of using DFID’s specialisation in fragile states to greater effect. Indeed, accepting a certain amount of risk is an often unavoidable cost of programming in fragile contexts, and taking calculated risks on innovative programming can result in much bigger impact. However, a common understanding of risk must fit within a well-informed conflict analysis, so that ‘acceptable risk’ does not extend to fuelling some of the factors that are driving conflict (such as government corruption).

On a related note, ICAI’s findings highlight a serious disconnect between analyses of the context (which would point to some of these pitfalls), articulation of paths towards stability, and on-the-ground DFID programming, which is alarming. We are aware that efforts have been made to increasingly conduct conflict analyses, with instruments such as the shared cross-departmental conflict analysis tool (Joint Analysis on Conflict and Stability) developed after the publication of the 2011 Building Stability Overseas Strategy. However, the extent to which these tools actually inform action and programme priorities remains unclear and must be addressed as a priority.

This points to another question about UK interventions: how will centrally developed strategies influence DFID’s on-the-ground programming (which as ICAI indicates, is more likely to be informed by local knowledge)? There appears to be a misalignment and tension between analysis and strategy developed in Whitehall (such as for the National Security Council) and nuanced in-country contextual knowledge held by DFID and their local partners. As strategies become increasingly centralised under the NSC, it will be important to consider that contextually driven planning processes with the right staff managing programmes at the ground level will have a greater likelihood of contributing to local stability than those driven generically from the centre, or based around UK national security concerns. Aligning central strategies to follow from in-country knowledge and build cross-government activity to support a greater vision for building peace in each context would be a more innovative approach.

Working to reduce conflict and fragility is not an easy task for donors or their partners, nor is it one without the risk of failure or frustration when things change rapidly on the ground. As ICAI notes, DFID is now a specialist organisation with 75% of its programme priority countries considered ‘fragile’ (though DFID’s definition of fragility is quite broad), and it is well positioned to build on the lessons learned throughout the scale-up, exploring and sharing alternative approaches for effective engagement. This promotion of best practice is important within Whitehall as well; the complexities of delivering aid in fragile contexts combined with competing objectives across departments can mean that key lessons and innovation are not capitalised upon. Even if aid is not the solution to every problem faced in conflict-affected contexts, improvement means increasingly empowering DFID to ensure that whole of government efforts are consistent with the aims of sustainable peace, informed by a strong understanding of local dynamics.

ICAI’s report follows a report earlier this month by the International Development Committee on non-aid policies. Both reports point to the need to ensure a strong development lead in setting cross-departmental objectives in fragile states in order to increase the prospects of sustainable development for the beneficiaries of UK aid in the longer term.

Overall, ICAI’s insights offer several useful entry points to build upon the UK’s now specialist work on fragility, prompting consideration of the difficult questions of the impact of DFID’s scale-up on everyday people affected by conflict. It presents an opportunity to push for greater conflict sensitivity and innovation in the UK’s overall engagement in conflict-affected states.

Shelagh Daley is Saferworld's UK Advocacy Coordinator.