1 / 11

Promoting “Resilience” in Situations of Fragility: Possible Implications on EU Donor Policies

Promoting “Resilience” in Situations of Fragility: Possible Implications on EU Donor Policies. Jan Pospisil (oiip / Vienna), Sophie Besancenot (EUI / Florence) EADI GC 2011: “Rethinking Development in an Age of Scarcity and Uncertainty” University of York, 20.9.2011. Outline.

maja
Télécharger la présentation

Promoting “Resilience” in Situations of Fragility: Possible Implications on EU Donor Policies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Promoting “Resilience” in Situations of Fragility:Possible Implications on EU Donor Policies Jan Pospisil (oiip / Vienna), Sophie Besancenot (EUI / Florence)EADI GC 2011: “Rethinking Development in an Age of Scarcity and Uncertainty” University of York, 20.9.2011

  2. Outline • “Fragility” and “Resilience” • New Conceptual Approach to International Statebuilding? • State of Implementation • (Potential) Implications for EU Development Policy • Concluding Remarks

  3. “Fragility” and “Resilience” (I/III) • “Weak/Failed States” since early 1990s, in Development Policy relevant since early 2000s (replacing “Peacebuilding”)“Fragile States” / “Fragility” since around 2005. • Wide range of scenarios, regionally flexible • Moving beyond blueprint approaches (which failed anyway) • Avoiding diplomatic pitfalls • Growing amount of development policy literature since around 2005 (mainly OECD DAC Working Group) • “Resilience”: introduced around 2008 (Feeding Papers for DAC)

  4. “Fragility” and “Resilience” (II/III) • Current Definition (OECD 2011): “More resilient states (…) are capable of absorbing shocks and transforming and channellingradical change or challenges while maintaining political stability and preventing violence. (…) They can manage and adapt to changing social needs and expectations, shifts in elite and other political agreements, and growing institutional complexity. Resilience increases when expectations, institutions, and the political settlement interact in ways that aremutuallyreinforcing.“ • Counterpart of “Fragility”, Opposite of “Stability” • Other accounts in development policy sector: ERD 2009, BMZ 2007 • “Resilience” also relevant in other policy sectors: Ecology, Economy, Financial Security, Security Policy

  5. “Fragility” and “Resilience” (III/III) European Report on Development 2009:

  6. New Conceptual Approach toInternational Statebuilding? • Current Development Policy Approach to Statebuilding (as discussed in INCAF / OECD DAC) has three components: • “Fragility”: Variety of Scenarios, regionally flexible • “Context” and “Do No Harm”: Fragile States Principles 1 and 2 • “Resilience”: Focus on State-Society-Relations • Key terms shift, e.g., from “Rule of Law” to “Legitimacy” • Nevertheless: How to move forward in terms of implementation?

  7. State of Implementation (I/II) • Approach is still contested among and within the donors themselves • Development Policy sector: various approaches within INCAF • Despite WoG-Approach: often different perceptions / approaches by Diplomacy, Military • Evaluations show: Knowledge of FSPs very low in the field(despite significant efforts of training, instruction, awareness raising) • Process of Dissemination / Policy Diffusion remains unclear(lack of research, Paris 2011) • Main focus in terms of implementation / evaluation is put on the FSPs(e.g. via the FSP Surveys)

  8. State of Implementation (II/II) OECD FSPSurvey 2009:

  9. Implications for EU Development Policy (I/II) • “Resilience”: very challenging concept for donors in the context of statebuilding / working in fragile environments • Who is a potential partner? Who is not? • What about so called “traditional” institutions (or “hybrid political orders”?) • What is “institutional legitimacy” in such a context? • What about state sovereignty? • First empirical explorations show different approaches among EU member states – e.g. France very reluctant against new approach, while e.g. UK adaptive=> severe difficulties to find a common approach (concept-wise)

  10. Implications for EU Development Policy (II/II) • ERD 2009 – most advanced / cutting-edged document on international statebuilding to date => designed to “forge a New European Approach”, could indeed offer a lot to statebuilding endeavours • Still: EC-emphasis mainly on technocratic and institutional statebuilding=> ambitious analysis versus insufficient adaption (cf. Hout 2010) • At present: international statebuilding is more an experiment for European Union that an answer to local / regional challenges=> EC / Member States will have to adapt / align their initiatives to really stipulate such “New European Approach”

  11. Concluding Remarks • “Resilience” is worth a try in international statebuilding (given the obvious shortcomings so far) => BUT: severe break with traditional avenues, therefore very challenging and politically sensitive • Dissemination is key: very ambitious regarding FSPs – but still falls short, particularly regarding dynamic aspects of “Resilience” • Several key tasks: • regarding Policy Development – less but better (clear-cut) policy guidance • regarding Implementation – more adaption needed, too much emphasis on static (“lessons learned”) and over-conceptualised (“SSR”) thinking • regarding Research – gaps in knowledge of policy diffusion, complexity around processes of policy implementation

More Related