GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENTS IN CONFLICT AND FRAGILE ENVIRONMENTS: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES What is a ‘country-led governance assessment’? The rise in conflicts situations across the worldi and the increasing focus on governance have coincided over the last decade or so, resulting in numerous studies, assessments and indices focusing on fragility and governance assessments in conflict and post-conflict situations. Virtually all of these track macro-level national trends and are disconnected from incountry peacebuilding and national statebuilding strategies. Unlikely these macro-level, external assessments, a country-led governance assessment is initiated, implemented and sustained by national actors. They provide additional input to the governance process by orchestrating “a country undertaking a reflective and systematic review of its own national governance processes”ii. Stakeholder participation in governance assessments can take place at different stages in the process. In an ideal situation, a wide range of local actors and stakeholders would be involved from the very beginning, while determining the scope and methodology of the assessment, and in all subsequent stages – data collection, analysis, dissemination and use. That, however, is not usually the case in conflict and fragile countries, due to the various contextual challenges.
Country-led governance assessments in conflict and fragile environments: why are they important? Building state capacity is dependent on solid evidence. In postconflict and fragile countries, as in other contexts, the capacity of the State to respond to the needs of its citizens in an efficient and effective way is determined to a large extent by its diagnostic capacity – in other words, poor analytical capacity
For more information: www.undp.org/governance United Nations Development Programme One United Nations Plaza • New York, NY 10017 USA
Key messages Investing in locally-driven governance assessments could enhance the capacity and legitimacy of fragile and conflict-affected countries In such settings, the challenges of conducting governance assessments are greater, especially in connection to participation, selection of indicators and sources of data, and dissemination and use of results Programmatic challenges can be mitigated with solid analysis and methodological techniques
often correlates directly with poor capacity to deliver on basic services. In the same fashion, a capable State needs to have the capacity to identify priority areas of intervention at the national, regional and local levels, set the agenda for a dialogue with donors, allocate resources based on objective needs, and assess its own functional and organizational capacities and performance. Participatory governance assessments contribute to building up State capacity in all these areas. But the capacity of states is seriously undermined when there is not a minimum degree of legitimacy, with loss of legitimacy -also on the monopoly on the use of violence- being an important contributor to state failure. Legitimacy is typically weak in fragile states and there is no doubt that building legitimacy plays a key role in buffering states against fragility. A country-led governance assessment can serve as an alternative mechanism to help reconstitute legitimacy from the inside, that is, building on the choices, expectations and aspirations of the people within the country. More specifically, a governance assessment provides a means to introduce or reinforce:
• input (process) legitimacy, through the participatory process underlying a governance assessment– for example, reaching consensus on ‘priority issues’ to be monitored might contribute to building agreements on the parameters of a ‘new’ governance system;
February
2011
• output (performance) legitimacy, through the monitoring of State performance and public dissemination of results – acting as an ‘accountability mechanism’, for example; and,
Defining Governance Indicators Development Plan of Iraqiii
for
the
National
The Government of Iraq has recently completed its first National Development Plan (NDP) for the period 2010-14 and is now developing sector-level indicators to monitor the implementation of the Plan. The Governance Chapter of the NDP is clearly the hardest ‘sector’ for which to come up with realistic and measurable indicators. But it is arguably the most important section of the Plan: not only is good governance a pre-requisite for achieving all other sectoral goals, but it is also the key to peace and stability.
shared beliefs legitimacy, through multi-stakeholders forums as platforms for public debate on the status of governance and dialogue between proponents of different notions of and narratives around the State.
Conducting country-led governance assessments in conflict and fragile countries: contextual specificities and challenges
In 2010 the UNDP Global Programme on Democratic Governance Assessments, in partnership with UNDP Iraq, UNAMI and USAID, facilitated two stakeholder workshops with high-level Iraqi officials. The workshops aimed to identify priority issues, develop specific indicators, and propose data collection methodologies, to monitor progress against the strategic goals outlined in the Governance Chapter.
The effective implementation of nationally-owned governance assessments in conflict and fragile environments is however, reflecting the circumstances of the situation and thus facing a wide range of challenges regarding: The politics of governance assessments, as a governance assessment is in itself an active intervention in the political situation and may have undesirable negative effects.
Many challenges and opportunities were identified by the workshop participants. The lack of political will to tackle larger governance challenges such as rule of law, justice, and human rights meant that a slow and incremental approach was preferred. The peculiarities of the Iraqi local governance system made it difficult to apply a standard indicator set. Availability of data, resources and institutional capacity were highlighted as important constraints. In the end, however, a set of 35 indicators was developed, which is fully endorsed by the Iraqi stakeholders. Most importantly, the process showed that even a small investment in a relatively modest governance monitoring system can go a long way in focusing policymakers’ attention on a governance agenda.
Participation, which will have varying degree of importance depending on type of conflict and fragile country. These are primarily related to social fragmentation, finding legitimate partners, and the shrinking space for State-society interaction. Selection of indicators, keeping in mind that perceptions on State performance are more unstable and can change quickly (as a result of an intervention with immediate tangible results) or slowly (especially regarding interethnic issues in divided societies). Limited availability of good data, because of, for example, security concerns, or institutional collapse. Dissemination and utilization of results - the fora, timing and format in which the results of the assessment are disseminated are of key importance, as these results can have unforeseen consequences.
Programming solutions and opportunities Although self-evident, to be cognizant of these challenges is the necessary first step towards doing no harm and ensuring that the process of conducting a governance assessment is not derailed. Solid analysis to understand the complex environment and shed some light on existing power relations and potential scenarios can mitigate the risks associated with participation and dissemination of results; similarly, methodological techniques (e.g. triangulation of data sources and sampling methods) can lessen some of the constraints regarding selection of indicators and data. Investing in a participatory process, which requires time and commitment, above all, can help in building broad-based ownership of the assessment and its findings.
Resources: UNDP Governance Assessment Portal, www.gaportal.org UNDP and DIE, 2009, Users’ Guide on Measuring Fragility. UNDP, 2009, Governance in Conflict Prevention and Recovery: A Guidance Note. Acknowledgements: Authored by Javier Fabra-Mata and Shipra Narang Suri, with inputs from Marie Laberge. Comments were provided by Jeremias Blaser, Marcin Buzanski, Bo Jensen, Joachim Nahem, Eugenia Piza-Lopez, Anna Praz, Jago Salmon and Timothy Sisk. Contact Information: Bo Jensen, Special Advisor, bo.jensen@undp.org or Joachim Nahem, Programme Manager, joachim.nahem@undp.org. UNDP Oslo Governance Centre. According to the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP), the number of armed conflicts in has risen from 29 in 2003 to 36 in 2009. See Harbom L. and P. Wallensteen (2010). Armed Conflicts, 1946-2009. Journal of Peace Research 47(4): 501-509. ii UNDP, 2009, Supporting Country-led Democratic Governance Assessments, Practice Note. iii See UNDP GAP Portal, Developing governance indicators for a complex post-conflict setting: A pioneering initiative by the Iraqi Government, at http://gaportal.org/support/workshops/developinggovernance-indicators-complex-post-conflict-setting-pioneering-initiative-iraqi-governmen i