Ensuring Impact and Inclusivity in Fragile States Conference Report 16-18 June, 2015 in Helsinki, Finland
2
CONFERENCE REPORT ENSURING IMPACT AND INCLUSIVITY IN FRAGILE STATES Table of Contents 4 Executive Summary 6 Thematic plenary sessions, highlights and outcomes 9 Country presentation highlights 13 Thematic workshops: highlights and outcomes 17 Conclusion: feedback from participants and conference follow-up 18 Annex A: Participating organisations 3
ENSURING IMPACT AND INCLUSIVITY IN FRAGILE STATES CONFERENCE REPORT Executive Summary Ensuring impact and inclusivity in fragile states Key outcomes The participants: 1) developed concrete thematic and context-specific overarching recommendations for enhanced inclusivity in fragile states 2) articulated roles for international actors in support of greater inclusivity in fragile states. In particular, they underscored the need for the UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) to continue playing an active role in supporting in-country inclusivity 3) agreed upon context-specific roadmaps for the continuation, broadening and elaboration of the Helsinki workshop process in Afghanistan, Somalia and Sierra Leone, to be spearheaded by the country teams of the CSPPS (Civil Society Platform for Peacebuilding and Statebuilding), and supported by UNDP From 16-18 June 2015, a workshop was held in Helsinki, Finland with the aim to take stock of and identify good practices for strengthening civil society participation in New Deal processes. A key focus of the conference was to discuss and explore the role UNDP and international NGOs can play in supporting the wider inclusion of key stakeholder groups at national level in New Deal processes. Organising this event and ensuring strong delegation participation was made possible with support from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland and the UNDP. The workshop brought together government, civil society and UNDP representatives from Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and Somalia, as well as partners from the CSPPS, Finn Church Aid, the Finnish MFA and UNDP in New York. A delegation from South Sudan, the fourth case study country, was unable to attend. The case was however discussed at the workshop and is therefore included in the report 1. The country cases addressed in the conference were selected to represent degrees of civil society inclusion, stages of New Deal implementation, and crisis-support needs related to peacebuilding (healthcare, stability, conflict). Raising the awareness of the New Deal process among all participants was also one of the event s goals, as the relevant framework for ensuring and anchoring inclusivity. The meeting also provided space to discuss 1 Please see participating organisations in Annex A. other processes that helped propel New Deal implementation at country level, including the g7+ Fragile-to-Fragile cooperation arrangement and CSPPS peer support mechanism. Country papers were drafted prior to the conference for each of the country cases, taking stock of the opportunities and challenges of civil society inclusivity that emerged from civil society organisations consultations, leading to the preparation of country papers. The conference discussed key issues and lessons learned around: the strengths of civil society participation in New Deal implementation at country level, as well as the weaknesses, gaps and needs of civil society in New Deal implementation. the role the UNDP can play in empowering local communities and civil society so that better engagement can be achieved in national New Deal processes. the role of INGOs in the New Deal process, particularly in supporting national civil society actors and engaging in policy processes around the New Deal at global level. ways to ensure the broader inclusivity and participation of key stakeholder groups at national level in New Deal implementation and beyond such as women, young people, traditional and religious leaders, and marginalised minorities. In addition, specific sessions were dedicated to discuss ways to ensure the ND is made more gendersensitive; operationalization of Fragile-to-Fragile cooperation; PSG1 and ways to establish benchmarking for inclusivity across different countries; reflections on roles of INGOs in ND partner countries. 4
CONFERENCE REPORT ENSURING IMPACT AND INCLUSIVITY IN FRAGILE STATES The conference also sought to inform participants about other efforts made to benefit, and document lessons learned, from New Deal implementation in fragile states. First and foremost this includes the on-going review of the New Deal by the IDPS (International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding). A key result of the conference was that each country group agreed to a five- to six-point roadmap for moving the New Deal forward in their countries in ways that will advance inclusivity. Each country group agreed to take these roadmaps to the national level and use them as a basis for developing country dialogues, and finalising country papers. These country dialogues will be supported by UNDP and participants agreed that they could be designed along the lines of the same model as was used in the Helsinki conference. Responsibilities for reaching out to CSOs, donor, and government constituencies and fostering better inclusion were delegated to the respective stakeholders that were present in Helsinki. 5
ENSURING IMPACT AND INCLUSIVITY IN FRAGILE STATES CONFERENCE REPORT 1. Thematic plenary sessions, highlights and outcomes Each of the core themes of the conference was discussed in a plenary session, following a presentation from a representative of one of the meeting s stakeholders. Core themes were inclusivity as a concept and practice, the New Deal implementation process, and enhancing the role of civil society as a partner for implementing the New Deal. 1.1 Inclusivity This session allowed participants to discuss the meaning and significance of inclusivity in peacebuilding processes and in the specific context of the New Deal process. Inclusivity was first described as a subjective notion for donors, civil society and government representatives, but the term refers to the need to consider social groups that often find themselves underrepresented at the policymaking arena such as women and youth. In seeking the equal influence of stakeholders in the outcome of the New Deal process, inclusivity involves participation, ownership, being aware of and enjoying participation space and having an equal say. All this ensures that participation is not limited to representation, but that it empowers civil society stakeholders and avoids the discretionary exclusion of certain groups, while upholding the leave-no-one-behind principle. Inclusivity is meaningful in peacebuilding processes because it underscores legitimacy and equality, increases confidence and shows a tolerance for different views. As civil society s access to information is improved and power relations shift, it also fosters accountability in government and donor stakeholders. Dialogue that promotes shared decision-making also translates into more accountability, of a higher quality, for more people. Inclusivity encourages transparency, as people understand how different processes work (this is particularly important in the context of the New Deal). Snapshots from the discussion floor Sierra Leone CSOs expressed the view that tight deadlines will neither enable nor ensure inclusivity. Sweden felt that inclusivity challenges efficiency, but acknowledged that highly exclusive processes do not last very long. Inclusive processes are sustainable and efficient in the long run. Many civil society projects in Afghanistan have made gender part of the inclusivity dialogue. However, most countries steer away from this issue. In Afghanistan, gender was not taken into account from the start of the country paper, but its implementation is perceived to be very time-consuming and that is the reason why it is not receiving the right recognition. 1.2 Inclusivity as part of the New Deal implementation In this session the g7+ Secretariat provided an overview of the New Deal implementation within the g7+ group of fragile states as an inclusive process for collectively solving societal issues. g7+ cooperation for New Deal implementation is based on solidarity and the sharing of similar problems. This solidarity is perceived as a prerequisite for statebuilding and peacebuilding. A narrative other than fragility is needed, as it enjoys low acceptance among group members. For the first time, statebuilding and peacebuilding have been included in the development agenda, underlining a determination to solve issues using soft measures. The goal is to set the focus on the country, a so-called ownership of problems, with external support. The g7+ is perceived as a global voice by its member countries, rather than a mediation group. Given that military responses cannot lead to sustainable peace, the New Deal introduces a new framework that focuses on institution-building and inclusive politics. Instead it focuses on institution building, because state institutions tend to be weak in fragile countries. The New Deal argues that development organisations must include state institutions from day one, and that communities must 6
CONFERENCE REPORT ENSURING IMPACT AND INCLUSIVITY IN FRAGILE STATES unite to build these institutions. The New Deal urges the utilisation and application of context-sensitive tools and instruments, and country-owned diagnoses in the form of Fragility Assessments. Relevant aspects that are pertinent to the New Deal are listed below. SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) must be peaceful, just and inclusive. We now have the opportunity to institutionalise SDG16 at country level and further demonstrate peacebuilding in a tested formula. Through the New Deal process, fragile states have been given a voice, and they are consulted as a forum, speaking with one voice. Ownership has thus been redefined to also civil society through different levels of dialogue. The process has reframed the narrative of fragile states, with the focus now shifted to their needs, and addressing urgent and emergent crises, for strengthening accountability through the countryheavy, global-light principle. This offers more room to move away from a business-as-usual situation so that donors can align with the New Deal, starting with the use of country systems. Fragile-to-Fragile cooperation under the New Deal refers to peer learning (such as the cooperation between Guinea Bissau and Timor Leste for the organisation of the 2014 electoral processes). The New Deal intends to provide meaningful changes for citizens and the tri-partite partnership aims to impact the grass-root level. Within this context, civil society has an important role to play in holding the governing actors accountable, thereby ensuring that governments deliver on their commitments. In the wake of the g7+ Secretariat s presentation, the conference participants raised several questions, which are listed below, together with relevant responses. What form can the operationalisation of the cooperation between fragile states take? Concrete examples include supporting Fragility Assessments and mobilising peer support. How can knowledge sharing with civil society be improved? The improvements necessary in this area should start with the strengthening of CSO coordination and representation and the building of consensus on a shared agenda for the dialogue as a prerequisite for collaboration between civil society and the government. How can trust in a government be built? CSOs must be encouraged to provide constructive points to the discussion. How can engagement with countries considered fragile (and formerly fragile) be supported? There is a database that s kept up-to-date that helps to identify relevant experts. This database should be set up before the establishment of the g7+ Foundation. It is accessible to all registered CSOs/ NGOs and will host country papers and relevant thematic reports on the New Deal implementation. How can the private sector be engaged? Private sector representatives should be involved through public-private partnerships. Cooperation with the IFC (International Finance Corporation) is also proposed in looking for investors interested in fragile states. How can a balance between stakeholders be realised in peacebuilding discussions? An inclusiveness principle has been agreed at global level, but more time to change operational processes is needed at country level. Civil Society is well positioned to hold authorities accountable. 7
ENSURING IMPACT AND INCLUSIVITY IN FRAGILE STATES CONFERENCE REPORT 1.3 Civil Society as partner for New Deal implementation During this session, the CSPPS looked at the operational 2 and legitimacy aspects of the role CSOs play within the New Deal, from acknowledgement as full partners to effectively voicing critique of processes as part of, and around official steps of, the New Deal implementation process. Some of the biggest challenges facing g7+ CSOs are that they have a diminishing window of opportunity to voice their concerns and participate in official processes, and they are increasingly regarded as political opposition. In response to this, a government representative advised that a first step towards achieving a functioning working relationship should be for civil society to change their perception of politicians as the opposition, seeing government officials instead as fellow citizens and individuals. Legitimacy is a recurring issue in discussions about civil society inclusivity in peacebuilding processes. Representatives from CS introduced three types of legitimacy: Grievance legitimacy: social groups facing inequalities rally around common grievances. This is the hardest form of legitimacy to sustain. Violent legitimacy brings to the table the question of the long-term value added by civil society. This form of legitimacy plays a particularly strong role in postconflict contexts. In South Sudan, for example, CSOs lent their expertise to the drafting of documents for communication with foreign donors, instigating confidence in government ministers. Coercive legitimacy is ensured by donors convening all parties to talks, including the government, donors and civil society. This form of legitimacy for inclusiveness is most effective when governments are weak and cannot exclude CSOs, but it can also backfire. In South Sudan, once again, donors involved CSOs in conflict mediation to address the identified needs of citizens. However, each warring party brought handpicked CSOs that ended up fighting among themselves. When discussing partnerships, participants mainly noted two things. Firstly, in the context of their privileged access to government representatives, CSOs must communicate citizens views. They should thus keep as close as possible to the country s reality and avoid communicating at a level that is too intellectual. Applying the concept of civil society in post-conflict areas is hardly neutral, and should therefore be done cautiously. Among options for engaging governments, formalising relations is not per se necessary. As a country gets more stable, trust between the parties will grow. If CSOs realise they cannot engage in the necessary dialogue with the government, they should consider bringing like-minded external actors in to share and facilitate discussions. For example, Burundi power structures have caused a lack of trust between civil society and the Burundi Government and space for engagement has been lacking. Contrast this with Somalia, where many government officials have had external exposure and show understanding of the concept of civil society. 2 Please see CIVICUS, Bridging the gaps: Citizens, organisations and dissociation (2011), CIVICUS, The state of civil society report (2014), CIVICUS, The International Framework for Civil Society, OECD-DAC, International Engagement in Fragile States (2011). 8
CONFERENCE REPORT ENSURING IMPACT AND INCLUSIVITY IN FRAGILE STATES 2. Country presentation highlights Each group of country representatives reflected on the role of civil society and the status of society relations in each country case. This was followed by a discussion between all participants on opportunities for improving inclusivity within the New Deal at country level. Country groups also fleshed out draft country roadmaps, with actionable ideas to promote inclusivity and strengthen civil society inclusion and engagement in national New Deal processes. The roadmaps included ideas as to how each respective group, governments, the UN and civil society can take this agenda forward. Partners agreed to bring the roadmaps back to their constituencies and organise country-level workshops to discuss the ideas, as well as finalise the country papers prepared in advance of the Helsinki workshop. 2.1 Afghanistan The Afghan Government official stated that as a result of the current security situation, there might not have been enough consultation on inclusivity on a sub-national level. At an international level Afghanistan is an active contributor to negotiations. A literature review is currently being conducted at regional level on all available studies relevant to the New Deal process in the country. Civil society has been active for the past 14 years, providing services the Afghan Government could not deliver. Even though its activities have changed to channelling society s wishes and influencing the Government s structuring of policies, the potential for dialogue at the Afghanistan country level remains largely untapped, as processes are not always as inclusive as whished for. More positive aspects are to be found in the national UNSCR 1325 action plan, which is also to be implemented under the New Deal, and with the completion of a Fragility Assessment, even though only CSOs closer to the Government were represented. Civil society has to be understood as a broader concept, and include groups from all regions. Civil society in Afghanistan is described by UNDP as a mixture of different groups representing the voices of communities. However, the Afghan people do not see it as a larger concept than NGOs. CSOs show their influence in the media, through law-making and by producing statements and papers. Their lower level of inclusion can be explained by a change of governmental focus from institution building to the protection of human rights. UNDP encourages their inclusion by establishing CSO advisory boards at a critical time, with the new Fragility Assessment meeting high staff needs for political, economic and security transitions. The composition of the Advisory Committee on the New Deal and compact processes show a willingness on behalf of the Afghan Government to include civil society. Following the presentations the participants discussed the points listed below. Permanent structures that ensure inclusivity should be established from the results of the Fragility Assessment, i.e. an inclusive technical advisory board that includes a gender advisor. There are expert committees for each PSG (Peacebuilding and Statebuilding Goal) but due to security constraints all remain at the level of capital cities. The New Deal process has been amended to ensure the inclusion of civil society, but the issue of which CSOs should be included still remains. The compact was signed with a transitional government and, to prevent duplication, is now included with the national development strategy. The inclusion of traditional structures (such as Shura councils) in community level programmes has been conducted to avoid selection conflicts for the delivery of services between communities, donors and the Afghan Government. Afghan CSOs have noted that formal dialogue and communication channels are still lacking. Internal divisions limit the Afghan Government s capacity to address reports of corruption and plan new infrastructures in the country. The g7+ Secretariat remarked that the development of country-owned programmes took three to four years and was not supported by the kind of cost measurement that would have made monitoring their implementation possible. Some 40 per cent of 9
ENSURING IMPACT AND INCLUSIVITY IN FRAGILE STATES CONFERENCE REPORT operating costs are still provided by donors and accountability to commitments is difficult to request. However, pledges and disbursements are indeed monitored. To date there is still insufficient use of country systems in the imbursement of aid. A four-point roadmap on inclusivity in Afghanistan emerged from a brainstorming session. 1. CSOs in Kabul will get together and form a consensus on the structure of representation, as well as on the classification of issues (themes, groups). To this end they will prepare a proposal and approach the Afghan Government. The proposal will also include ways in which the CSOs can help the Government, for example in conducting an effective Fragility Assessment. CSOs will also review indicators to ensure that they reflect the needs of their constituents. They will also open dialogue with communities, traditional leaders and traditional civil society. The g7+ Secretariat stressed that action should be under an Afghan, as opposed to an international, banner. This is because involvement with international actors makes traditional chiefs afraid of assassination. CSOs can build a constructive relationship with the Afghan Government, by actively engaging with the New Deal process and contributing to inclusivity, for example. This allows them to support the Government when faced with criticism from donors. 2. AWN (Afghan Women s Network) will link the Afghan Government and UNDP with the Civil Society Task Force (elected civil society representatives). 3. The g7+ Secretariat will inform the Afghan Ministry of Finance about the cooperation plans. 4. The UNDP will sensitise the Civil Society Task Force so that it is ready to work with the Government. The UNDP will also act as a facilitator, provide the necessary space and organise meetings. There are also some resources that can be made available for essential activities in support of this process. 10
CONFERENCE REPORT ENSURING IMPACT AND INCLUSIVITY IN FRAGILE STATES 2.2 Sierra Leone Government representatives noted that the country was a founding member of the g7+ and the IDPS and, in 2012, was the first to conduct a Fragility Assessment, integrating causes of the civil war. Engagement with civil society in Sierra Leone goes back to 2011, with the involvement of the CSPPS country team in developing Fragility Assessment indicators and raising broader civil society awareness about the New Deal and the process developments. All this ensured inclusivity at community level that is crucial in times of crisis and for enforcing rules at local level. Despite a lack of funding, the inclusion of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender), disabled organisations and dealing with gender issues is ensured. Coordination among CSOs is another issue, as is capacity building. The political will to realise inclusiveness exists, but this will is not backed up by the necessary action on a political level, especially for agenda setting. CSOs are ready for stronger international involvement and to hold all stakeholders accountable to their commitments. Sierra Leone s significant New Deal progress was noted by UNDP and the next Fragility Assessment there will include lessons learned from managing the Ebola outbreak, which increased community level awareness for the New Deal. A dashboard will be used for monitoring principles as part of both the MAF (Mutual Accountability Framework) and the Agenda for Prosperity. It will also ensure the recovery plan implemented by development actors will feed into the Ebola recovery plan of the Sierra Leone Government. During the ensuing discussion, participants noted several points. All too often, CSOs respond to donor needs whereas they should prioritise people s needs, and in an inclusive manner. The New Deal comes with tight deadlines which do not make allowance for this, so goals are not effectively pursued. The Ebola crisis was treated as a clinical issue. The issue of trust between the people and the Sierra Leone Government was difficult. CSOs had to intervene to facilitate and establish a communication link between the two. Consequently, divisions appeared between affected communities, where the work of the Red Cross was complemented, and those that did not receive that support. Those divisions must be addressed through a conflict prevention lens. The IDPS Secretariat remarked that private-sector dialogue in Sierra Leone is meant to feed into the next Fragility Assessment. According to the UNDP the response to the needs of the New Deal process should come from CSOs themselves, ensuring that people s needs are linked to the Ebola Recovery Strategy. Civil society advised that, in future, strategic documents should not be presented directly to the people but that their content should be communicated to communities. The CSPPS thinks that CSOs in Sierra Leone must be supported so they can speak with one voice, and build on their collective work as part of the Ebola report published in April 2015. Furthermore, more parties should be included, to ensure the voice of all stakeholders are heard. A five-point roadmap on inclusivity in Sierra Leone emerged from a brainstorming session. 1. The Sierra Leone Government and the UNDP must ensure that CSOs are included in all discussions on the implementation of the New Deal. 2. Internal coordination mechanisms and platforms for CSOs will be consolidated and their membership will be reviewed and expanded. 3. There must be duplication of the seminar/dialogue on inclusiveness and the guiding principles of the New Deal, possibly in all 14 districts and finally at governmental level. Representatives from CSOs, UNDP and the Sierra Leone Government should be included. 4. A discussion on healthy partnerships between CSOs and INGOs will be initiated. 5. An additional staff member is needed for the national platform. As funds are limited, SLANGO (Sierra Leone Association of Non Governmental Organisations) requested a (national) UN Volunteer to support the platform. All processes will be initiated before September 2015 (review of the New Deal), but the development of a healthy partnership will require more time. 11
ENSURING IMPACT AND INCLUSIVITY IN FRAGILE STATES CONFERENCE REPORT Government stakeholders too much. CSOs and the Government should collectively ensure that New Deal benchmarking takes place and that criticism of the process is both heard and addressed. 2.3 Somalia At the time of this event the Somalia Government reported progress on benchmarking for the New Deal and on-going measures for the transition towards an election process. Working on PSG and high-level discussion processes has highlighted perception issues that the New Deal is too focused on donor-government relations, highlighting the need for more entry points for civil society. Inclusiveness has received attention, but related programmes are underfunded. The compact signed in 2013 is still perceived as a foreign framework, even though the Government pushed for the integration of its own principles. It is expected that future aid programming will be aligned on these principles and to the national budget cycle, and that dedicated channels 3 will help end aid fragmentation. CSO involvement in the New Deal is not seen as representative because of the political and territorial fragmentation of Somalia. However, this does not mean it is a no deal. For civil society the New Deal is a process that is new to many in Somalia, including the Government. Drafting the Compact was a rushed process that was not conducted nationally. Consequently, this was not conducive to ownership, and today communication with civil society has stopped. CSO inclusion ended after the signing of the compact, the gender inclusivity target was removed and the PSG Working Groups still do not include them. As a result, most Somali people do not see the benefit of the compact for their daily lives. Further concern regarding the democratic division of power within the Government is illustrated by the fact the Presidential villa hosted the independent electoral commission, for security reasons. Capacity building that benefits civil society is lacking and donor support favours Following the return of a Government after 25 years of absence, a big change in conditions has been noted by the UNDP. Service delivery has just started, for which civil society should play a monitoring role. However, a lack of development data and needs assessment is making it difficult to plan this delivery. A starting point is identifying the roles and the nature of the Government and of civil society. The political situation is very volatile, institutional reforms are on-going and a new way must be found to engage Somali actors in the New Deal. CSOs need to be involved in the functioning of an aid coordination unit for monitoring service quality and holding the Government accountable. During the discussion of the Somalia country presentation participants noted several points. Despite there being a lack of trust, the IIDA (Women s Development Organization) feels that NGOs have the capacity to manage international funds. What s more, the perception of civil society as being fragmented does not prevent their meetings from taking place. The Somali diaspora also plays an important role and should be counted as civil society. Centralisation and federalisation in Somalia has allowed for the emergence of new regional states in which civil society is participating. An example of this is universities in new states. A four-point roadmap on inclusivity in Somalia emerged from a brainstorming session. 1. Civil society activity will be mapped in-country, particularly in emerging states. All regions and regional administrations will be engaged. Work will build on existing capacities. The CSOs code of conduct, for example, is applicable to all CSOs, including new ones. A conference will be organised in Mogadishu. 2. A civil society coordination mechanism capable of reaching out to the Government will be developed and agreed upon. 3. A platform for coordinating between civil society and regional and national governments will be created. The Somalia Government will approach Focal Points and other civil society representatives who will be selected through election, to ensure legitimacy. 4. The platform will be linked to the work of the Government s coordination unit. 3 World Bank Multipartner Fund, African Development Bank and UN Multipartner Trust Fund. 12
CONFERENCE REPORT ENSURING IMPACT AND INCLUSIVITY IN FRAGILE STATES 3. Thematic workshops: highlights and outcomes During this part of the conference, participants suggested themes and voted for the following areas to be discussed in a workshop context. They agreed on recommendations to be further discussed and planned at country level, in addition to roadmap points. 3.1 Gender Among the issues that were identified, it was acknowledged that gender is crucial to the implementation of the New Deal and needs to be taken into account within its various pillars. A particular focus should be placed on building women s capacities in local communities to avoid having gender issues advocated only by elite minorities. The Ebola crisis increased the necessity of building women s capacities because many men left their communities. Cultural and religious barriers to the inclusion of women in the broader context of society, and the political will to overcome them, are another issue to be addressed as part of the New Deal. There are opportunities, and existing research on which to build 4. Gender should be used as a crosscutting issue at INCAF, for example, and funding opportunities come from donor countries interest in gender. In addressing cultural barriers and political will, we should build on international agreements (Human Rights Framework, UNSCR 1325). Fragile-to- Fragile cooperation and CSO coordination can provide opportunities to form alliances around gender and women issues. Ensuring the inclusion of g7+ civil society by the DAC Gendernet is facilitated by CSPPS, while building on PSG 1 and 4 indicators should focus on women s integration. Recommendations included the following: involving women associations in Fragility Assessments; increasing support to their outreach to owners in rural areas; increasing the leadership of rural women; allocating adequate finances from national and donor budgets; involving traditional leadership in strengthening gender perspective; sharing good practices and learning from success stories in Fragile-to-Fragile cooperation and changed perceptions of women roles in g7+ societies; linking the implementation of the New Deal to existing country programmes, such as UNSCR 1325 action plans; and, finally, implementing SDG5 and recognising women as resources, following on the Cordaid survey on the integration of women in the New Deal process and ensuring that adequate attention is given to gender in ND monitoring and review processes. 3.2 Fragile-to-Fragile cooperation and best practices During this session the participants identified several issues. These included the absence of mechanisms for knowledge sharing and learning, a lack of genuine and open discussion 5 on peacebuilding, and the need for capacity building and system strengthening. Several opportunities were identified. These included documenting and sharing best practices for the articulation of traditional and modern governance mechanisms; enhancing the roles of the diaspora and the elders; engaging non-state armed groups in dialogue; and strengthening civil society Fragile-to-Fragile or South-South peer support options with support from the international level (INGOs). Participants cited the following specific examples that might be considered for application. Fragile-to-Fragile cooperation can also be used in the context of natural resource exploitation and in negotiations with big corporations. In Sierra Leone, traditional structures have been very supportive in the process of fighting Ebola. 4 Including CSPPS, Integrating Gender into Peacebuilding Compacts and Fragility Assessments: Insights from South Sudan, Somalia and Afghanistan (2013), International Alert, Gender and Peacebuilding (2013), Cordaid, Integrating Gender into the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States (2012). 5 In some cases CSO representatives are selected by the government for personal reasons. 13
ENSURING IMPACT AND INCLUSIVITY IN FRAGILE STATES CONFERENCE REPORT Botswana has successfully incorporated traditional structures into their statebuilding structures. These could be replicated In South Sudan, Somalia and Sierra Leone, using elders as leaders at community level, in combination with modern statebuilding concepts. As seen in the case of Rwanda, traditional justice systems could be used while a modern judiciary system is set up. In Somalia diasporas have become a key force, participating in decision-making bodies. They provide opportunities for fragile countries because they bring in experiences and new ideas. In East Timor ministers shared their experiences of negotiating with international actors and deals with other fragile countries, such as South Sudan. Kenya has offered training for civil servants in South Sudan. These forms of cooperation can, and must, be extended to civil society. Nigeria and Bolivia had problems with multinational companies about long-term contracts (50 years) that were detrimental to the country. Both countries succeeded in either renegotiating or dissolving these contracts. Further recommendations include: developing mutual accountability portals and reports within the g7+ to identify a lack of funds, pledges and gaps; developing a Fragile-to- Fragile sharing strategy; sharing knowledge through a database or forum supporting Fragile-to-Fragile implementation; strengthening civil society engagement in the g7+ as Fragile-to-Fragile cooperation (DRC-CAR was cited as an example); learning beyond the g7+ membership (e.g. Rwanda, Mozambique, Kenya). The operationalisation of these recommendations involves the following. Ways to establish mechanisms for learning and sharing good practices are necessary. A needs and priorities list should be developed for each country, supported by a database maintained by the g7+. CSOs across the g7+ should also maintain a similar forum and database for exchanging information (the existing CSPPS website has a facility for this to build on). A common forum between g7+ Government and civil society, without facilitation, could also be considered. The success of this information-sharing arrangement depends on countries political will at ministerial level and on trust building among and between CSOs, so that information can indeed be shared. 14
CONFERENCE REPORT ENSURING IMPACT AND INCLUSIVITY IN FRAGILE STATES A plan or schedule should be set up, where it is clearly reported who has pledged/donated money, and how it has been used. This could be done collectively in the g7+ forum by establishing a collective pattern of reporting to be published on a common website. 3.3 CSO coordination Among the issues discussed by participants was a lack of the type of CSO coordination that can bring broad inclusivity for increasing access. They also discussed sharing information and bringing clarity to different CSO mandates, and dealing with the shrinking space in which CSOs can act. The issue of legitimacy should be addressed among CSOs where the value added of all types of organisations as part of one coalition has not been asserted: for instance local vs. diaspora organisations, traditional structures vs. modern NGOs, political NGOs and the private sector. The New Deal is an opportunity to develop relationships and coordinate joint action. Lively exchanges on countries can help the sharing of good practices related to, for example, faith-based organisations (like those seen in South Sudan). Coordination between INGOs and local CSOs can be fruitful and the media can be used to increase ownership (like in Afghanistan, for example). Self-funding is an opportunity to develop independent legitimacy. Recommendations include the following: conducting actor mapping (with CS participation) and working on stakeholder selection processes; developing monitoring and reviewing tools for peer learning; revisiting the CSPPS model and clarifying the Secretariat s support functions in capacity support; coordinating international and local shares of representation and developing a code of conduct; cooperating with the media to raise civil society voices; and, finally, including traditional structures and women groups. The UNDP can play a major role in achieving all this. To address these issues, participants made several recommendations. These included creating clear, measurable and realistic benchmarks, defining appointment selection/election processes and reaching out to local actors. They also suggested tying funding to improvements in respecting human rights principles, for example, including New Deal principles in national development strategies and plans that serve operationalisation. Other recommendations were ensuring the availability of educated and experienced representatives, supporting talent, nurturing leadership through scholarship schemes, for example, and developing benchmarks for ownership that will feed into inclusivity discussions. 3.5 INGO roles and NGOs in partner countries Issues that were discussed included CSOs in partner countries being reluctant to buy into the New Deal because of rivalry between INGOs and CSOs with certain cases in partner countries. INGOs are perceived as having too much impact on donors, especially in EU countries. Furthermore, there is room for improvement in the coordination within and between INGOs, and the branding of INGO funding for service delivery weakens legitimacy. Moreover, certain INGOs are considered to be playing too important a role at global level in the IDPS. Finally, there is competition with governments over resources and the delivery of services. The INGOs role in national PSGs should be one of supporting operationalisation. Opportunities for improvement were identified and these include starting with civil society champions to get countries to adhere to New Deal principles. INGOs can be helpful/ 3.4 Benchmarking for inclusivity Issues include external influences such as political developments that impact the process, and meeting conditions for both quantitative and qualitative benchmarks where clear process milestones do not exist. Numbers are not always enough but it is crucial to ascertain the quality of the representation. For example, there must be strong women candidates in elections 15
ENSURING IMPACT AND INCLUSIVITY IN FRAGILE STATES CONFERENCE REPORT through international standards, get INGOs to assist with policy and aid monitoring in donor countries, and facilitate CSPPS mapping of INGO performance in the New Deal. 3.6 PSG1: inclusive/legitimate politics Issues that were identified included the operationalization of horizontal and vertical inclusivity and the use of country systems to channel funds and develop structures at all levels. Moreover, because donor communities tend to rush the necessary processes, sufficient time needs to be allocated for implementation. supportive in this context by providing accountability through reports (also under the New Deal) with reference to global principles, such as the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership, including New Deal principles in Eurodad and monitoring funding under publish what you fund. Recommendations included correcting misperceptions of the New Deal and trying to understand why INGOs/ NGOs are resisting the adoption of the New Deal by the government. Another recommendation was for the establishment of a global g7+ coalition of CSOs, asking Eurodad to develop accountability standards for the New Deal. The question remains, however, of where this process would be started and who would start it. The aims are to increase the accountability of INGOs Opportunities that were identified included striking a balance between process inclusivity and effectiveness and linking decision-making to the role of local leaders. In the area of quotas, power-sharing arrangements and best practices for better government arrangements, the onus must be on selection, not appointment. Finally, the spaces for dialogue with donors must be extended. Recommendations include using Fragile-to-Fragile cooperation for increasing trust in the processes, if necessary bringing non-state armed groups to the table too. It was also proposed that a mechanism to bring issues from local to national level be developed, taking advantage of local and traditional structures and leaders. Finally, holistic government and society approaches should be bridged. 16
CONFERENCE REPORT ENSURING IMPACT AND INCLUSIVITY IN FRAGILE STATES 4. Conclusion: feedback from participants and conference follow-up Participants concluded the two-day conference by committing themselves to take recommendations and roadmaps back to their constituencies and continue the dialogue and cooperation for finalising country papers. These documents will help communicate messages, while advocating the New Deal framework as the most effective way of discussing opportunities and shortcomings of inclusive peacebuilding. There is consensus that constructive civil society engagement must be enhanced and sustained. Although entry points have been found (e.g. recognising civil society as a legitimate actor that brings value and can help governments in their negotiations with donors and monitor donor pledges), further efforts are still needed on both sides to fully understand and be appreciative of one another, and to enhance cooperation. Trust building and the forging of relationships are essential. There is an awareness and strong consensus on the fact that a core principle of the New Deal is, and needs to be, inclusivity, i.e. broadening engagement and the empowerment of groups that represent the various sections of society. More grassroots organisations, traditional leaders and informal groups should be represented. Gender also needs to be fully integrated at all levels of the New Deal. The CSPPS underscored an important priority: how to ensure the New Deal implementation process can gain traction on the ground. In support of this, the dialogue structure needs to be replicated at country level; dialogue can help all stakeholders pursue the next steps towards collaborative action plans. The g7+ Secretariat noted that to facilitate their presence on a global level CSOs must organise themselves better at the country level. The roles they can play, and the support the g7+ Secretariat can give them, are issues that need to be further discussed. UNDP representatives committed to ensure further experience sharing between the countries that participated in this event, and offered support for holding inclusive country dialogues modelled on the conference recommendations. This will be led by CSPPS country teams, with the assistance and support of UNDP country offices and from the New Deal Facility. During discussions a consensus emerged that the UNDP can, and should, play the role of convener or facilitator and act as a buffer or trusted party between governments, donors and civil society. The IDPS reminded participants of upcoming country level processes that have been organised to assess the implementation of the New Deal. These will lead to a new New Deal Monitoring Report, and will support planned country dialogues examining transparency, the use of country systems, and the use and linkage of New Deal instruments. 17
ENSURING IMPACT AND INCLUSIVITY IN FRAGILE STATES CONFERENCE REPORT Annex A: Participating organisations Afghanistan Afghan Women s Network UNDP Afghanistan Sierra Leone Council of Paramount Chiefs Fambul Tok Ministry of Finance and Economic Development Sierra Leone Association of Non Governmental Organisations (SLANGO) UNDP Sierra Leone Somalia Aid Coordination Unit, Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation IIDA (Women s Development Organisation) Ministry of Interior and Federalism UNDP Somalia Somali Women s Leadership Initiative Somali South West Development Organisation Government representatives Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Finland Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sweden NGOs Berghoff Foundation Crisis Management Institute IOM Helsinki Finnish Evangelical Lutheran Mission Finn Church Aid Swisspeace Center for Peacebuilding Global Civil Society Platform for Peacebuilding and Statebuilding, Secretariat g7+ Secretariat International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding, Secretariat UNDP BPPS The original agenda included country presentations and workshops for South Sudan. However, visa issues prevented the participation of this country s delegation. After the event, a follow-up was ensured with South Sudan stakeholders to support in-country development of a related country paper and a dialogue similar to those presented here. 18
CONFERENCE REPORT ENSURING IMPACT AND INCLUSIVITY IN FRAGILE STATES 19
The Civil Society Platform for Peacebuilding and Statebuilding (CSPPS) is the official forum for coordinated civil society participation in the International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding (IDPS). It brings together a diverse representation of civil society globally, both from the g7+ countries and from civil society organizations working on issues of peacebuilding, statebuilding, conflict & fragility and development at regional and global levels. Since 2011, we have engaged in the shaping of the IDPS process and its outcomes and in country implementation of the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States. The conference Ensuring Impact and Inclusivity in Fragile States held in Helsinki in June 2015 brought together government, civil society and UNDP representatives from Sierra Leone, Somalia and Afghanistan. The meeting was called to reflect on the role, strengths and needs civil society is faced with in the implementation of the New Deal across member countries. The international conference also looked at the role UNDP can play in empowering local communities and how INGOs can help support and safeguard inclusive civil society participation into the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States. Contact Civil Society Platform for Peacebuilding and Statebuilding (CSPPS) Cordaid, as part of its commitment to addressing fragility, hosts the CSPPS coordinating secretariat. Peter van Sluijs, Coordinator IDPS CSO Secretariat / CSPPS c/o Cordaid P.O. Box 16440 The Hague The Netherlands psl@cordaid.nl info@cspps.org www.cspps.org www.facebook.com/civilsocietyplatform @idps_cspps This conference report documents key learnings and outlines how agreed upon roadmaps can be the basis for furthering national country dialogues and for moving the New Deal forward in each case country. This conference was made possible thanks to the kind support provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland and UNDP.