Results – Dutch contributions to stability, security and rule of law in fragile contexts
IOB performed an evaluation of the combined Dutch efforts to promote stability in fragile contexts and break the vicious cycle between (ethnic) tensions, armed conflict, instability and weak governance. It focuses on the period 2015-2022, and includes all Dutch foreign instruments, including diplomatic efforts, development cooperation and military interventions.
Background
The central problem analysis underlying Dutch foreign policy and development cooperation is that fragile and conflict-affected contexts are both a burden for the people living in these contexts and a possible security threat for Europe and the Netherlands. Fragile and conflict affected countries in particular are having the greatest difficulty achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). At the same time, in 2022, a quarter of the world’s population, and three quarters of all people living in extreme poverty globally, lived in fragile contexts.
Promoting stability, security and rule of law in fragile and conflict-affected contexts is therefore one of the priorities of Dutch foreign policy. Over the years, development cooperation has increasingly targeted fragile contexts, with expenditures on stability, security and rule of law totalling EUR 2.7 billion for the period 2015-2021. Through its interventions, the Netherlands aims to contribute to ‘legitimate stability’ and an improved ‘social contract’ in fragile contexts, thereby addressing the root causes of violent conflict, terrorism, irregular migration and poverty.
IOB performed three case studies for this evaluation:: Afghanistan, Mali and South Sudan. In addition to primary data-collection in these three countries, interviews and literature research, the evaluation furthermore draws on a meta-review of all evaluative literature on development and stabilization interventions in Afghanistan, South Sudan and Mali.
Central question
To what extent has the Netherlands contributed to stability, security and rule of law in fragile contexts, and what lessons can be learned for future policy formulation and implementation?
Conclusions
The most important findings are briefly listed below. They are described in full in the evaluation report.
Conclusion 1:
The Netherlands has contributed to some positive results at the local level and in technical sectors, but the evidence is mixed, and these results did not break the vicious cycles of violence and instability in Afghanistan, Mali and South Sudan.
Conclusion 2:
There are limitations to the malleability of society in fragile and conflict-affected settings, and there is a gap between the policy ambitions and the sphere of influence of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Conclusion 3:
Internal political and institutional barriers have hindered the ministry from working in an integrated fashion and effectively adapting its programmes and policies to changing contexts.
Conclusion 4:
There is insufficient attention for conflict sensitivity and the risk of doing harm in fragile and conflict-affected settings
Recommendations
Below, the main recommendation is formulated. In addition to this main recommendation, six recommendations are added aimed to provide concrete strategies. The recommendations are described in full in the research report.
The global increase of fragility and the Dutch commitment to the SDGs could warrant continued Dutch investment in fragile contexts. At the same time, it is important to have realistic expectations about the potential role of the international community and the Netherlands.
IOB considers this main recommendation to be pivotal, as improved policy implementation alone is unlikely to lead to the achievement of current policy objectives in fragile contexts.
Translate long-term objectives at the impact level (‘ ‘the points on the horizon’) into country-specific, more concrete and realistic objectives closer to the ministry’s sphere of influence. Ensure there is coherence between the political agenda, policy objectives and programme objectives. Be open about the dilemmas of engagement in conflict-affected and fragile contexts.
Strive for demand-driven policies and programmes in fragile contexts, based on the national context and local needs. More decision-making power, budgets and capacity should be delegated to embassies, supported by strengthened country teams in The Hague. Furthermore, the MFA and implementing partners should develop mechanisms for downward accountability.
Be careful in drawing red lines for engaging with governments. Because peace and stability at the national level is crucial for effectiveness of programmes, it is important that the MFA continues to engage in policy dialogue and support peace processes. Also improving the social contract requires the involvement of governments. This also means that the MFA and political leaders should accept the inherent risks of operating in fragile contexts. In the event of a political decision to disengage from national government actors, the MFA should reassess its policy objectives accordingly.
The MFA should promote a culture of transparency and learning. This requires creating a working environment where policymakers and political leaders can be more open about dilemmas, risk taking, mistakes, shortcomings and a lack of progress. The ministry and implementing partners also have to promote such a transparent culture with implementing partners. The MFA should invest in staff expertise and capacity, give greater priority to programme management, and continue to integrate monitoring, evaluation and learning into the general workflow.
The Dutch government should be more explicit about the objectives and operationalisation of the integrated approach (3D-approach). Invest in joint problem analysis to ensure the coherence of foreign interventions by different ministries. The MFA and implementing partners must make a greater effort to operationalise the ‘triple nexus’ between development, peacebuilding and humanitarian assistance. But above all, the MFA should strengthen its efforts to promote coherence and coordination with the wider international community; an integrated Dutch effort should not stand in the way of coherence of international efforts and coordination between donors.
Ensure active (and independent) monitoring of conflict sensitivity and the risk of doing harm during the implementation of programmes and policies, and adjust them when necessary. International donors and implementing partners should reflect on the impact of the presence of international organisations and donors on the political economy of a conflict, and proactively identify ways to mitigate the negative effects. Furthermore, the perspective of targeted or affected communities should be included in determining where the conflict sensitivity risks outweigh the expected benefits.
