Working Effectively in Conflict-affected and Fragile Situations: Briefing Paper E: Aligning with Local Priorities

This 13-page briefing paper from the United Kingdom (UK) Department for International Development (DFID) explores the concept of alignment - the use of a partner country's policies, strategies, and priorities to guide donor action - in contexts affected by conflict or fragility.

To avoid blueprint approaches, DFID places a strong emphasis on in-depth contextual analysis and regular situation monitoring to inform the level and type of alignment that is most appropriate. Following an introductory section that provides context for this position, the briefing paper next provides examples of different approaches and instruments for alignment, and considers when they are likely to be appropriate. The examples show a spectrum, with instruments such as budget support that deliver funds through government systems at one end, to options such as shadow alignment (providing aid in such a way as to mirror national systems to enable rapid conversion to "real" alignment as soon as conditions permit) and bottom-up approaches, which work with some state and non-state actors but do not channel funds directly through government systems, at the other end.

Taking DFID's understanding of fragile states as a starting point (i.e. the notion of state capacity and state commitment to poverty reduction), DFID here advances some broad-brush suggestions for different contexts:

• Where there is state capacity, but no commitment to poverty reduction: Consider working with, or if necessary outside, the state, using off-budget, joint, national, or regional programmes with pooled funding, perhaps with the United Nations (UN) having oversight. Use humanitarian projects, but in response to humanitarian need. Partner with non-state actors, and with state actors where possible, such as local government. Shadow align with state systems. Support key reformers in government, perhaps with selective technical cooperation.
• Where there is both little capacity and little commitment: A lack of state capacity can mean there are more opportunities to work with local government, communities, civil society, and the private sector. Focus on strengthening the capacity of vulnerable communities themselves.
• Where there is commitment, but little capacity: Ensure that an overarching strategic framework is in place between government and donors, covering political, security, and development strategies. Consider budget support. Provide technical cooperation for capacity building, but ensure it is government-led, not donor-led. Align behind government budgeting and planning; complement with social fund or social protection arrangements to get resources to communities and begin to build from the bottom up. Use direct contracting of the UN and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) where national programmes are insufficient, but "on budget".

A few specific examples are provided here to highlight the communication-specific elements of DFID's approach. For instance, technical assistance must always support the development of sustainable, indigenous capacity. Experience in post-conflict settings shows that taking the time to build ownership and re-establish local institutions results in more rapid progress overall and will almost certainly produce stronger country leadership and more sustainable outcomes. Avoiding "capacity substitution" requires careful design of programmes, and technical assistance providers with the right skills and experience, including experience in training.

In addition, Community Driven Development (CDD) programmes, or Community Based Approaches, are described here as a useful alternative to alignment with central government systems. CDD encompasses a range of programming techniques that involve beneficiaries in the identification, design, management, and monitoring of local interventions. Because local needs in a post-conflict situation are highly variable, involving communities in the allocation of resources can be an effective way of targeting resources and a useful strategy for rebuilding social capital. However, minimum standards on the treatment of women and minority groups must be incorporated into programme design. The quality of the participatory processes that are put in place and their sensitivity to local context are therefore critical and often need support from external facilitators. Key issues in designing CDD programmes include the following:

• Defining the community: Determining the boundaries of the community is a key decision point. Detailed analysis of the incentives for and against collective action is required.
• Relationships with local authorities: CDD generally operates to some degree in parallel with local government structures, and is often chosen precisely because there is a legacy of mistrust of government by communities. However, one of the goals should be to bridge these divisions. Community-based organisations can be encouraged to become intermediaries between communities and local government.

Amongst the key lessons learned highlighted at the close of the paper is the need for flexibility: "The degree and type of alignment possible in fragile and conflict-affected situations is likely to change over time, and not always in a linear manner. Donor programmes that perform best are often the ones that accept the dynamic nature of fragile situations, by employing a range of instruments and partnerships or by responding quickly and flexibly to changes. These approaches require an acceptance of risk and a commitment to monitoring the context to enable risk mitigation and rapid adjustment."