Just as we do in Britain, people in developing countries want to be able to live safe, peaceful and prosperous lives. Security and access to justice are basic rights and it is to the government’s credit that DFID’s latest white paper, ‘Eliminating World Poverty: Building our Common Future’, recognises this.
But security and justice aren’t just important in their own right, they are also essential for peaceful, democratic societies in which sustainable development can take root and flourish. And, in turn, socio-economic development is itself critical for sustainable security in fragile and conflict-prone countries. DFID’s white paper makes this connection explicit and marks the welcome inclusion of security and justice issues into the development mainstream.
DFID has also acknowledged that promoting security and justice requires long-term political commitment, saying “…in fragile countries, poverty reduction cannot be separated from progress on politics and security.” However, this language somewhat underplays the issue. Promoting the provision of responsive and accountable security and equal access to justice touches on the very way a state exercises its monopoly on the use of force and on such sensitive issues as national security and sovereignty. Some governments may be actively opposed to measures they see as weakening their grip on power – it is vital that commitments made in the white paper are backed-up by long-term, regular and high level political dialogue with partner governments.
And so ensuring the whole of government is working to the same plan becomes even more important. The Foreign Office must play a key diplomatic role in supporting the promotion of security and justice and utilising the MoD’s experience, expertise and in-country contacts will also be crucial. So it is welcome that ‘Eliminating World Poverty’ sets a target of June 2010 for developing joint strategies across government for every fragile country in which the UK has a substantial development programme, as well as a cross-Whitehall ‘conflict strategy’ to be produced in 2009. Ensuring that all departments are appropriately resourced and able to fulfil their respective roles will also be key to success for any cross-Whitehall initiative.
But there are other challenges to promoting security and justice. Fragile and conflict-prone societies are complex and difficult places to work – there may be concerns about the safety of staff or difficulties ensuring local ownership when relevant actors have recently been in conflict with each other, to take just a couple of examples.
DFID’s paper does acknowledge the complexity of the challenge, but success will need more than extra money. Well-trained, committed staff who remain in post long enough to develop a thorough understanding of the issues and local context are vital for managing the challenges faced in fragile and conflict-affected environments. And so, whilst a renewed commitment to reach 0.7% of GNI on official development assistance is most welcome, growing pressure from the Treasury for DFID to disburse increasing amounts of money with fewer administrative costs – and fewer staff – is possibly the most serious challenge to the objectives of this white paper.
Trying to ‘do more with less’ has led donors to increasingly outsource their programmes to the private, academic and NGO sectors. Large outsourced projects often have lower ‘transaction costs’ than smaller programmes conducted in-house and may well be an effective method for improving efficiency, capacity and value for money. However outsourcing security and justice programmes entails a host of risks and negotiating such political and sensitive areas of policy and practice – as well as ensuring that they are integrated with wider development and conflict prevention strategies – will still need proactive management from government.
Given how long it takes post-conflict societies to recover from conflict, and the difficult, protracted and often contested nature of promoting security and justice, programming also needs to be planned, implemented, evaluated and funded according to the way the world actually is – not to short-term funding objectives and impact assessments. This means being prepared for occasional failures, being flexible enough to respond to changing circumstances and recognising that lasting impact can only be achieved and measured over the long term.
This may be at odds with pressure to show immediate results, but it is the only way such complex and sensitive work will be successful.
Similarly, the promotion of security and justice needs to operate on a timescale that is not dependent on the domestic UK political cycle. Creating a safer, more secure world is in all our interests and should be a UK, not party political, ambition.
The UK can play a valuable role in promoting security and justice for the world’s most vulnerable and marginalised people. This would be morally right in and of itself, right for broader development and achieving the MDGs, and right for our own security and well being.
But to do so, the UK must ask itself: are we in it for the long haul?