Development cooperation in fragile situations – chance or utopia?

Chances and risks of development cooperation in fragile situations, illustrated by the case study of Kosovo

Mag.a Stephanie Altmann,Vienna

(Paper written in cooperation with Mag.a Dr.a Ursula Werther-Pietsch)

Contents

Introduction & Background Views of the state Fragility Donor engagement and state effectiveness in

fragile situations Statenbuilding and Peacebuilding The Kosovo case Research findings

Introduction & Background I

specific difficulties for actors of the international development community in fragile situations

improvements achieved might not be carried forward without an adequate institutional environment

implications for development cooperation: focus on strenghtening state institutions, -structures and –capacities

stronger link of state- and peacebuilding

Views of the state I

„[M]odern states focus and answer the concerns and demands of their citizenries.“ (Rotberg 2004:2)

State = complex construct, fulfilling a „twofold role“ (cf. Ottaway 2007:11; cf. Schneckener 2006:9)

Views of the state II

4 main perspectives:

functionalist formal international lawsociologicalstate as „social practice“ (Jung 2008:38)

Fragility I

multi-causal, multi-dimensional distinctive, context-specific (cf. McLoughlin 2010:17)

violent conflict as a central factor = cause, symptom and consequence

internal factors / external factors

Fragility II

Definition? No consensus within the donor community so far

Heterogenous group of states – one single term

OECD Definition:„States are fragile when state structures lack political will and/or capacity to provide basic functions needed for poverty reduction, development and to safeguard the security and human rights of their populations.“ (OECD, 2007, „Principles for good international engagement in fragile states and situations“)

Resilience

Donor engagement and state effectiveness in fragile situations I shift in 2001- 09/11 – raising awareness, Millenium Development

Goals (MDGs)

focus on state-building in fragile situations after 2001

different ways of handling fragile situations during last two decades, following „‘failed states‘ doctrine“

emphasis on stabilization, security sector reform (SSR) and socio-economic recovery programs

Donor engagement and state effectiveness in fragile situations II legitimacy, political dialogue, state

formation processes, human rights, rule of law, demobilization, disarmament and reintegration (DDR), transitional justice – acknowledged as essential to sustainable peace-building – addressed in lesser extent

Donor engagement and state effectiveness in fragile situations III Effective state?

10 functions, Institute of State Effectiveness (ISE) (Ghani/Lockhart/Carnahan 2006:111-115):

- Monopoly on the legitimate use of force- Public administration- Management of public finances- Investments in human capital- Definition of a social contract, delineation of citizenship rights and duties- Infrastructure services- Creation of a market- Management of national and public assets- International relations, public borrowing- Rule of law

Statebuilding & Peacebuilding I

peacebuilding: measures targeted to reduce the risk of lapsing or relapsing into conflict (OECD 2010)

statebuilding: endogenous process, enhancing capacity, institutions and legitimacy of the state

many interferences – many risks

Statebuilding & Peacebuilding II

bridging Peacebuilding and Statebuilding (PBSB) is needed for efficiency reasons and looking at synergies/tensions between them requires sound conceptual foundations!

Same goal – different emphasis

Peacebuilding and Statebuilding III

PBSB interfere in the sphere of formerly internal domains external engagement in fragile situations has to involve measures that reach into the internal sovereignity and governance capacities of states reshaping relationship between states and their citizens (cf. Krause and Jütersonke)

Peacebuilding & Statebuilding IV

PBSB Synergy? central tensions can be counterbalanced

with essential similarities challenge is to translate theoretical

similarities and aims into practically applicable approaches

Kosovo – political and historical aspects of statehood

“Despite their injections of huge diplomatic, security, financial and human resources into Kosovo over the past decade, it appears that the international community has not managed to support a process of laying the foundations of a strong state and a peaceful society.” (Montanaro 2009:14)

Kosovo – political and historical aspects of statehood repeatedly conflicts over Kosovan

geopolitical situation (importance for Serb and Albanian population)

several significant phases in Kosovos path to becoming a state

1980ies: political discontent expressed in demonstrations, petitions and strikes (cf. Kramer/Dzihic 2006:16)

Kosovo – political and historical aspects of statehood non-violent resistance at the beginning;

expressed by the emanation of a parallel state (until 1999)

influence of traditions – scepticism against the state?

1999 – NATO war, Serbia finally lost control over Kosovo; UNMIK engagement under SCRES 1244

Kosovo – political and historical aspects of statehood Resolution 1244 was intended to:

„[…] resolve the grave humanitarian situation in Kosovo […] and provide for the safe and free return of all refugees and displaced persons to their homes.“ (SCRES 1244/1999)

outcome of UNMIK: „negative peace“

Kosovo – political and historical aspects of statehood „Ahtisaari Plan“ for „monitored

independence“, 2007 Declaration of independence on Feb. 18th

2008

Kosovo finally a state?

State authority? Effectivity?

„ticking socio-economic bomb“ (Dzihic 2010)

Legitimacy and trust in the government? Weaknesses of previous strategies of the

engagement of the international community? „positive peace“?

Research findings I

Main fields of interest: important aspects of statehood in the 21st

centurychallenges, risks and opportunities/chances

for development cooperation in fsprinciples of a context analysisprinciples for a donor guidance the nexus of state- and peacebuilding

Research findings II

no templates for effectivity of the state

specific characteristics in specific situations!context-dependent!stronger participation of the civil society in the

process of finding those characteristics is crucial!

Research findings III

main risk: doing harm massive financial aid for countries with highly

uncertain political settlement – exacerbation of conflict!

proper handling of the security situation!

Statebuilding as political manner – sensible framework for approaches & enhanced donor cooperation! State is not a field for experiments!

Research findings IV

sophisticated analysis of the context

understand the politics and economic potential on the ground!

main fragilities?shared donor analyses!

Research findings V

lessons learned as contribution to the development of new and innovative approaches

dilemmas of previous state-building attempts in Kosovo: rather international rule than assistance? lacking self-determination within the process of state-building

refusal of international engagement circumvention of state-structures and systems in order to obtain

successes

Research findings VI

Statebuilding and Peacebuilding have to go hand in hand – but care has to be taken of the tensions and contradictions between them!

Conclusion

different fields for donor action in fragile situations – potential for sustainable strengthening of state structures

self-determination has to be a principle Stronger nexus of State- and Peacebuilding in

post-conflict societies Changed understanding of Peacebuilding and

forms of violence (e.g. structural)

References

Agenda for Chance, Freetown 2008 - 2012, http://unipsil.unmissions.org/portals/unipsil/media/publications/agenda_for_change.pdf

Anten, Louise (2008): Fragile States: State Building is not enough, in: Challenges in a changing World: Clingendael Views on Global and Regional Issues, Den Haag: Clingendael Institut, 2008, S. 209-219

http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2008/20081100_anten.pdf

Anten, Louise (2009), Strengthening Governance in Post-Conflict Fragile States, Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Clingendael Institute, Issues paper.

Bakrania, Shiv/Lucas, Brian (2009): The Impact of the Financial Crisis on Conflict and State Fragility in Sub-Saharan Africa, GRSDC Issues Paper, 2009

http://www.gsdrc.org/docs/open/EIRS6.pdf

Clapham, Christopher(2002): The Challenge to the State in a Globalized World, in: Development and Change Vol. 33, 2002, Nr. 5, p. 775-795

Debiel, Tobias/Lambach, Daniel (2007): From „Aid Conditionality” to “Engaging Differently”: How Development Policy tries to cope with fragile states, in: JEP, Vol. 23, No. 4(2007), p. 80-99

Debiel, Tobias/Lambach, Daniel/Reinhardt, Dieter (2007): “Stay engaged” statt “Let them fail”. Ein Literaturbericht über entwicklungspolitische Debatten in Zeiten fragiler Staatlichkeit, INEF-Report Nr. 90, Duisburg: Institut für Entwicklung und Frieden, 2007

de Coning, Cedric H. (2010), Clarity, Coherence and Context - Three Priorities for Sustainable Peacebuilding. Oslo: Norwegian Institute of International Affairs and Ottawa: Centre for International Policy Studies, University of Ottawa.

Department for International Development (DFID) (2009), Eliminating World Poverty: Building our Common Future, Chapter 4: Building Peaceful States and Societies; http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/whitepaper/building-our-common-future-print.pdf?bcsi_scan_0AB3CD11C6E4C963=55au1hrV+GEx9fIxAjqC3IhqEAwTAAAA2XTxBQ==&bcsi_scan_filename=building-our-common-future-print.pdf

DFID (2010): Building Peaceful States and Societies. A DFID Practice Paper, DFID 2010http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications1/governance/Building-peaceful-states-and-societies.pdf

Dili Declaration (2010), A new vision for peacebuilding and statebuilding. International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding, outcome document of the Dili Conference April 9-10; http://www.c-r.org/our-work/influencing-policy/Dili%20Declaration_FINAL_12042010.pdf

Dudouet, Veronique (2007), Surviving the Peace. Challenges of war-to-peace transitions for civil society organizations (Berghof Report No. 16), Berlin: Berghof Foundation.

Džihić, Vedran (2010): Der unvollendete Staat Kosovo braucht dringend neue Impulse. Print version of the „Presse“, 12/14/2010

http://diepresse.com/home/meinung/gastkommentar/618210/Der-unvollendete-Staat_Kosovo-braucht-dringend-neue-Impulse

Ghani, Ashraf/Lockhart, Clare/Carnahan, Michael (2006): An Agenda for State-Building in the Twenty-First Century, in: The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, Vol. 1, No.: 3, 2006, p. 101-123

Hofbauer, Hannes (2008): Experiment Kosovo. Die Rückkehr des Kolonialismus. Vienna: Promedia Druck- und Verlagsges.m.b.H., 2008

Interpeace Background Paper (2010), Voices of civil society organisations (CSOs) on peacebuilding and statebuilding. Prepared as an input to the International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding, Dili, Timor-Leste, 9-10 April; http://www.interpeace.org/images/pdf/interpeace_background_paper_international_dialogue_conf_dili_cso_input_final_23042010.pdf

Kaplan, Seth: Fixing fragile states: solutions that make local sense, in: Policy Review, Nr.. 152, Dec-Jan 2008

Kramer, Helmut/Džihić, Vedran (2006): Die Kosovo Bilanz. Scheitert die internationale Gemeinschaft? Vienna: Lit Verlag GmbH, 2006

Krause, Keith and Oliver Jütersonke (2007), ‘Seeking out the State: Fragile States and International Governance’, Politorbis, No. 42, pp. 5-12.

Loj, Ellen Margarethe (2010), UN SRSG in Liberia, Debate on UN peacekeeping operations: transitions and exit strategies, Presentation at UN SC on 12 February.

Jung, Dietrich (2008): State Formation and State-Building: Is there a lesson to learn in sociology? in: Fragile Situations. Background Papers, DIIS Report Fragile Situations 2008:)II, Copenhagen, 2008, p. 33-42, http://.gsdrc.org/go/display&type=Document&id=3203

Malcorra, Susana (2010), Perspectives from the field – operationalising the Initiative, Panel statement at the seminar ‘The socio-economic impact of peacekeeping operations’, Under Secretary General for FieId Support, 1 October, New York.

Mata, Javier F./Ziaja/Sebastian (2009): User’s Guide on Measuring Fragility, DIE/UNDP, Faust, Jörg/Nahem, Joachim (Eds.), 2009

http://www.undp.org/oslocentre/docs09/Fragility_Users_Guide_%28web%29.pdf

Mcloughlin, Claire (2010): Topic Guide on Fragile States, Governance and Social Development Resource Centre (GSDRC), International Development Department, University of Birmingham, 2009

Menocal, Alina Rocha (2009a), ´State-building for peace´: navigating an arena of contradictions, ODI Briefing Paper No. 52; http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=3673&title=fragile-state-building-peace-conflict

Menocal, Alina Rocha (2009b), State-building for peace, European Report on Development, European University Institute/Overseas Development Institute, Florence; http://erd.eui.eu/media/2010/RSCAS_2010_34.pdf

Menocal, Alina Rocha (2010), State-building for peace: a new paradigm for international engagement in post-conflict fragile states. Florence: European University Institute (Florence Working Papers, Robert Schumann Center for Advanced Studies 2010/34).

Montanaro, Lucia (2009): The Kosovo Statebuilding Conundrum: Addressing Fragility in a Contested State, FRIDE Workig Paper No. 91, Oktober 2009

Zugang über: http://www.fride.org/publication/694/the-kosovo-statebuilding-conundrum:-addressing-fragility-in-a-contested-state

OECD (2010a), Do No Harm, International Support for Statebuilding, Paris: OECD; http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/32/44409926.pdfbcsi_scan_0AB3CD11C6E4C963=0&bcsi_scan_filename=44409926.pdf

OECD (2010b), OECD Guidance on International Support to Statebuilding in Situations of Fragility and Conflict , 24 September.

OECD (2007), Principles on Good International Engagement in Fragile States and Situations; http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/45/38368714.pdf?bcsi_scan_0AB3CD11C6E4C963=0&bcsi_scan_filename=38368714.pdf

Ottaway, Marina (2007): Entwicklungszusammenarbeit in fragilen Staaten, in: BMZ – Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (Eds.): Fragile Staaten. Beispiele aus der entwicklungspolitischen Praxis, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2007, p. 11-20

Petritsch, Wolfgang/Pichler, Robert (2005): Kosovo – Kosova. Der lange Weg zum Frieden, Klagenfurt: Wieser Verlag, 2005

Pospisil, Jan and Ursula Werther-Pietsch (2009), Good Governance, State Building, Resilience - Der ambivalente Umgang der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit mit der Frage von Staatlichkeit’, in Österreichische Forschungsstiftung für Entwicklung (ed.), Staat und Entwicklung. Vienna, pp. 37-48.

Roithner, Anna Katharina (2010), ‘Politischer (Wieder)-Aufbau in fragilen Staaten. ‘“Exportartikel“ Staat?’, in Österreichisches Studienzentrum für Frieden und Konfliktlösung (ÖSFK) (ed.), Analysen und Perspektiven einer jungen ForscherInnengeneration, Safran Paper, May; http://www.aspr.ac.at/sak2009/safran06.pdf

Rotberg, Robert I. (2004): When States fail. Causes and Consequences. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004

Schneckener, Ulrich (2006): Fragile Staatlichkeit. „States at risk“ zwischen Stabilität und Scheitern. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2006

Schubert, Ulf-Manuel (2005): Staatszerfall als Problem des internationalen Systems, Marburg: Tectum-Verlag, 2005

Thürer Daniel (1995), ‘Der Wegfall effektiver Staatsgewalt in “The Failed State”’, in Daniel Thürer, Matthias Herdegen and Gerhard Hohloch, Der Wegfall effektiver Staatsgewalt in ‘The Failed State’. Berichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht, Vol. 34, pp. 9-48.

Six, Clemens (2009): Zwischen Klasse und Gesellschaft. Zur Geschichte des Staates im Entwicklungsdiskurs, in: ÖFSE Analysen, Information: Staat und Entwicklung, Ausgabe 2009, Vienna: Südwind-Verlag, 2009, S. 19-27

Stepputat, Finn/Engberg-Pedersen, Lars (2008): Fragile States: Definitions, Measurements and Processes, DIIS, Copenhagen, 2008

http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&type=Document&id=3203

UNCTAD (2009): The Least Developed Coutries Report 2009: The State and Development Governance, New York: Geneva, 2009

http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ldc2009_en.pdf

University of Innsbruck (Hilpold Peter, organiser), Die Unabhängigkeitserklärung des Kosovo – Das Gutachten des IGH vom 22. Juli 2010 und seine Auswirkungen auf das geltende Völkerrecht, 16 December 2010; International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding, Busan/Korea, 30 November /2 December 2011.

Vienna 3C Appeal (2010), Coordinated, Complementary and Coherent measures in fragile situations: Principles and Aims of Interaction between Government and Non-governmental Actors – Recommendations; http://www.bmeia.gv.at

Werther-Pietsch, Ursula and Roithner, Anna-Katharina (2010a), ‘The interaction of state and non-state actors in fragile situations – findings and principles of the Vienna 3C Conference’, in Walter Feichtinger, Ursula Werther-Pietsch and Günther Barnet (eds), Coordinated, Complementary and Coherent Action in Fragile Situations – The Vienna 3C Conference, Vienna: Austrian Defence Academy (Series of the Austrian Defence Academy 12/2010/S).

Werther-Pietsch, Ursula and Roithner Anna-Katharina (2010b), Das Engagement von Nichtregierungsorganisationen im Spannungsfeld zwischen peacebuilding und statebuilding – der erweiterte 3C Ansatz, Policy Brief, Duisburg: Institut für Frieden und Entwicklung.

World Development Report (2011), Conflict, Security, and Development, http://wdr2011.worldbank.org/fulltext

Wyeth, Vanessa and Timothy Sisk (2009), Rethinking Peacebuilding and Statebuilding in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Countries: Conceptual Clarity, Policy Guidance, and Practical Implications (draft), New York: International Peace Institute/The Josef Korbel School of International Studies.