World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security and Development Comments by Robert B. Zoellick, President of the World Bank Group At the WDR 2011 Event Organized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and The Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI) June 8, 2011 AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY: Some 1.5 billion people live in countries cursed by repeated cycles of political and criminal violence. None of these countries has yet achieved a single Millennium Development Goal. Children living in fragile states are twice as likely to be undernourished and three times as likely to be out of school. Fragile states drag down neighbors with violence that overflows borders. For these and other reasons, when I came to the World Bank Group in 2007, I determined that we needed to examine the challenge of post-conflict and fragile states from fresh perspectives. In 1944, when the Bank was created, its formal name was the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. In that era, the Reconstruction referred to Europe and Japan. Today, the “R” in the IBRD points us to the challenge of the Reconstruction of post-conflict and fragile states. In 2008, I gave a speech at the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London titled “Securing Development.” My purpose was to draw attention to the intellectual silos and professional rigidities that separated practitioners of security, governance, and development. I called for interdisciplinary, practical research that connected the three fields so as to help us with the fundamental task faced by broken states: how to build sustainable legitimacy. About this same time, Paul Collier published his important book, The Bottom Billion, drawing attention to his path-breaking research. So I am pleased that the World Bank’s most recent World Development Report – on Conflict, Security, and Development – offers a new and I hope substantial contribution to this most difficult of policy challenges. When the Norwegian Government suggested we take the opportunity of my visit to Oslo to have a public discussion of our World Development Report, I responded enthusiastically – because Norway and the other Nordic countries offered us substantial contributions – both intellectually and financially. They all contributed to the preparation of the report. Denmark, for example, assisted with the dissemination of the report in the Middle East and Africa, reaching an audience where its messages have particular relevance today. Several Norwegian think tanks – including the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs – contributed to background papers and hosted a workshop on country cases. I know that our common interest in this topic flows deep here. Norway has often undertaken notable roles as facilitators in peace processes, building on a tradition of humanitarian action and development cooperation. Norway has a history of long-standing support for the UN’s peace and security work that reaches back to the election of the great Norwegian statesman, Trygve Lie as the first UN Secretary-General in 1946. Lie supported the foundations of Israel and Indonesia. He worked for the withdrawal of Soviet forces in Iran, and a ceasefire for fighting in Kashmir. More recently, Norway’s participation ranges from acting as the official facilitator of negotiations, as in Sri Lanka and the Philippines; to facilitating talks between Palestinians and Israelis; to being a participant in international coalitions, as in Sudan, Ethiopia-Eritrea, Somalia, Colombia, Guatemala, and Afghanistan. The World Bank has cooperated with Norway in a number of fragile states and situations. For example, we have worked together to assist the Palestinians through Norway’s chairmanship of the key aid coordination mechanism – the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee, for which the Bank Group supplies the Secretariat. In East Timor, we have cooperated through joint missions, a multi-donor trust fund, and the introduction of transparency measures for oil revenues. Our recent World Development Report offers ideas and practical recommendations on how to move beyond conflict and fragility by strengthening national institutions and by improving governance through a priority focus on citizen security, justice, and jobs. We suggest that international agencies and partners need to adapt procedures to fit the special needs of these dangerous situations. Assistance must be swift enough to provide for early wins – which are critical to building confidence – and pragmatic enough to allow for “best-fit” reforms that allow for flexibility, innovation, and adaptation to local conditions. Integrated assistance – for example, through multi-donor trust funds – enables countries with weak capacity to connect help to local priorities, reinforce mutual gains across topics, and build national ownership. Coordinated international help is vital to counter external stresses that can fuel fragility and violence, such as trafficking and illicit financial flows, food insecurity and resource shocks. Looking ahead, we hope we can receive support from the Nordic countries to combine security and development programs; explore new ways of managing risks; and push for results – not just resources – in the achievement of citizen security and trust in institutions. As national governments, the Nordics can help us make the World Bank Group more effective, and help translate the approaches of the UN and EU. The World Bank Group is now starting to operationalize the WDR. First, we are adapting strategies on the ground to better appreciate the political economy of fragility and violence. Second, we are increasing support for programs that create jobs quickly. Traditionally, economists have been wary of short-term job programs, because of concerns about sustainability. But those responsible for security emphasize the criticality of getting people – especially young men – to work. We now have experience from some 43 countries over 20 years that well-run labor-intensive programs, with wages that don’t discourage private sector jobs, can offer help to poor and vulnerable people. MIGA is also establishing a specific political risk guarantee facility for fragile states. IFC is combining advisory services and project finance in fragile situations. Third, we are building on and expanding partnerships to better connect security and justice programs to development. For example, we are looking at joint programs with the UN, such as peace-keeping operations for rehabilitating infrastructure in Liberia and Haiti, as well as how to enable the Bank to work under UN leadership in some circumstances, with a clear Bank lead on mobilizing resources. Fourth, we are increasing staffing and helping to build a stronger knowledge base, drawing on hard won experience. In particular, we are opening a practice hub in Nairobi, both as a base for our operational work in supporting country teams and clients Bank-wide, and to a build critical mass of teams that can share and analyze experience. We hope this Hub may also draw staff from others that share our interest. It might also be connected to the work of the State and Peace Building Fund. Fifth, we are adapting procedures to speed up our assistance; and Sixth, we are looking at ways to ensure that when donor aid dries up, fragile states can retain a minimum level of aid to ensure that basic services continue to be delivered and institutions continue to function. We are looking at, for example, possible revisions to the allocation system for the Bank Group’s development assistance to the poorest countries, as well as greater resources for the State-Building Fund to provide rapid aid to critical situations. The WDR also analyzes the impact of violence on women and their role in preventing violence. One of the implications is that we need to ensure women are involved in mediation processes, security and justice reform, and economic empowerment programs. When women are part of the reform process – for example, by including women and gender-specific services as part of police forces, or by providing finance and business training to women’s groups – it can strengthen the linkages between rapid confidence building and longer-term institutional transformation. I am especially pleased that fragile states will be a priority for the Danish EU Presidency. With your help and contributions, I hope we can add to the momentum behind this topic. So I’m interested to listen to your comments and learn from your experiences. We need to work together to translate these into practical policies and programs. |
RSS