At the end of December 2019, as I was moving from New Delhi to what I thought would be a leisurely retirement in Manila, I was complacent. The events that have buffeted the world since then, if I even thought of them, would have seemed to be total fantasy.
I certainly did not foresee a deadly global pandemic that would lead to almost 15 million excess deaths in just two short years and the return of trench warfare in Europe. These disruptions have had tragic consequences, not only for those directly affected, but also for those impacted by the knock-on economic effects, such as through the loss of economic opportunities and high prices.
No one is spared, but the negative effects are more pronounced for those already living in vulnerable areas, either because of recent conflicts or because of the small size of their economies. In Asia and the Pacific, this includes the significant populations of countries experiencing conflict like Afghanistan and Myanmar, as well as those in small-island economies like Fiji and Palau. Alas, some countries are vulnerable because they both conflicted and isolated, such as Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea.
Such crises are likely to lead to greater risk. The climate reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise and present plans are insufficient to limit global warming to 1.5° centigrade, the threshold scientists believe is the minimum to mitigate impacts. In the wake of the political and military conflagration in Ukraine, a recent article warns that the global economy will in the future be severely affected by "little fires everywhere" that could threaten entire societies.
The international community has consequently been ramping up its support to address the urgent humanitarian and development needs in fragile and conflict-affected zones. In fact, it has been doing that assistance for some time, with total bilateral official development assistance (ODA) to fragile contexts amounting to $76 billion (2.6 trillion baht) in 2018, or 2.3 times the level of foreign direct investment and two-thirds the value of remittances, according to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development.
In extremely fragile contexts, ODA amounted to 11.5 times the level of foreign direct investment and 2.5 times the amount of remittances. If used properly, every $1 of aid spent on prevention on average leads to up to $16 in savings in terms of the cost of conflicts, according to World Bank estimates.
However, when it comes to ensuring aid effectiveness in fragile and conflict-affected states, more is not necessarily better. Aid can go to waste unless it is directed at the right priorities and is spent well, as shown in a new report by the Asian Development Bank's (ADB) Independent Evaluation Department (IED).
Examining the experience of ADB in providing more than $17 billion of support through over 1,600 projects in about 20 fragile- and conflict-affected states during 2013–2021, the report stresses that such assistance must address capacity and coordination issues.
Capacity in government is more limited in fragile and conflict-affected zones than in other areas, making it more difficult to spend money properly. The support must thus be accompanied by technical assistance that addresses skill and governance constraints.
The IED report also suggests an increased focus on due diligence for governance-related projects so that reforms are properly sequenced, and preconditions to the achievement of such reforms are adequately considered. For example, ADB's introduction of a reformed project design and monitoring framework, which identifies the assumptions behind the presumed logical links between what was being financed and the outcomes being promised, is going to be helpful. These assumptions are then monitored closely.
Coordination is key if there are many well-meaning entities trying to help. The IED report found that implementation may be hampered by bureaucracy and differences in procedures of governments and development partners. A harmonised approach to fiduciary controls, security rules, monitoring, procurement policy and anti-corruption provisions among development partners can help ensure the smooth implementation of development and humanitarian work in these contexts.
The scope for donor coordination in fragile and conflict-affected areas can also include practical initiatives like joint donor offices, delegated implementation arrangements, and joint fragility and resilience assessments. Where possible, national civil society groups and other domestic actors can be included in diagnostic work to bring forth a shared understanding of constraints and opportunities. ADB, for example, piloted fragility and resilience assessments for Afghanistan, Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste, Myanmar, Kiribati, and Fiji that involved consultations with community and civil society groups.
States affected by conflict and fragility are going to be at greater risk of being left behind. Delivering aid as efficiently and effectively as possible in these contexts is key, not only to providing much needed short-term humanitarian assistance, but also to address the longer-term development challenges faced by fragile and conflict-affected states.
This is indeed a tall order that no one organisation can achieve. Rather, it requires concerted efforts among all actors in the international community -- efforts that are aligned with the capacity of recipient governments, especially when the future is less predictable.
Emmanuel Jimenez is Director-General of Independent Evaluation at ADB.
