Half of conflict countries relapse into violence in 10 years.
Designing decisive recovery is pillar of new strategy.
Understanding roots of fighting is precondition.
June 25, 2008–Poverty and conflict are intertwined, pushing dozens of countries, and millions of people, into patterns of insecurity and destitution.
But a conflict-affected country is not just a poor country made poorer: Wars create new paths into poverty, and new traps for people who already are poor. A country struck by violent conflict is likely to host large groups of displaced citizens, many injured and traumatized people, and newly vulnerable, female-headed households.
Beyond having merely dilapidated roads and water systems found in other poor countries, a war-torn country’s physical assets and infrastructures tend to be destroyed, and the social fabric is eroded by pervasive distrust. Moreover, factors that fueled the conflict – and the new dynamics of poverty – continue long after the cease-fire. As a result, conflict-affected countries face a special risk: Half relapse into violence within 10 years.
Spurred by President Robert B. Zoellick’s strategic emphasis on post-conflict fragile states, the World Bank is honing a clearer understanding of how poverty and conflict intersect. It is studying experience in countries such as Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, and Sierra Leone to determine how development agencies can shape poverty programs in ways that also lower the risk of new conflict.
UK-World Bank Program Focuses on 13 Fragile and Conflict-Affected Countries
To better understand the challenges of fighting poverty in conflict-affected countries, the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID) collaborated with the World Bank’s Social Development Department in a four-year analytical and technical assistance program. Its main goal was to identify the most effective ways for tailoring standard poverty reduction tools to address the specific challenges in fragile, war-torn states. The program focused particularly on 13 fragile and conflict-affected countries, including Afghanistan, Burundi, the Central African Republic, Haiti, and Sierra Leone. The findings were discussed at a June 17 workshop at the Bank.
“Helping countries to design a decisive recovery from conflict is a critical priority and one of the strategic pillars of our new President,” said Caroline Kende-Robb, acting Director of the Social Development Department. “To be effective, we have to understand the drivers of conflict and how they intersect with poverty.”
The poverty-conflict nexus touches a swathe of countries where the Bank works: Of the 65 low-income countries engaged in shaping poverty-reduction strategies, nearly a third have experienced violent conflict. Various others are considered to be at risk of violent conflict. The workshop focused on two specific challenges: conducting poverty assessments – urgently needed but more difficult to conduct in war-torn states – and formulating effective and realistic poverty-reduction strategies.
First Goal of Poverty Programs Is Establishing What Led to the Fighting
Increasingly, development specialists agree that in countries touched by violent conflict, it is risky to design new poverty programs without first establishing a clear grasp of the various social cleavages, grievances, and patterns of exclusion that led to the fighting.
Mark Segal, DFID’s conflict specialist, recalled that a few years ago in Nepal, development agencies misdiagnosed the core problem by assuming that growth and poverty reduction would automatically eliminate conflict risks, including those caused by inequality and exclusion: “People said, ‘We’re addressing poverty and because of that we’re addressing conflict.’ That was nonsense.” Broadly, Bank operational staff tend to agree that conflict factors must be taken into account. “Anybody who thinks it’s possible to address poverty without addressing this is clearly wrong,” said Peter C. Harrold, World Bank Director of Country Services.
Per Egil Wam, World Bank Senior Social Scientist, who managed this program, said, “If there is limited attention to conflict, you might end up with action that is harmful. You might strengthen regional imbalances, or you might be irrelevant, doing little to target excluded groups.” For example, a poverty analysis might not assign particular priority to former combatants, who wouldn’t likely emerge as one of the poorest groups. But experience shows that programs to reintegrate former soldiers are crucial to lowering the risk of renewed violence.
Surveys Help Reveal How Population Groups View Conflict
Surveys are useful tools in better understanding the ways that population groups themselves view a conflict. Relatively quick surveys in Central African Republic and Sierra Leone provided useful insights into the ways civil conflict had affected the society, informing the recovery programs without significantly delaying a badly needed peace dividend. Participatory research methods can also help planners understand the nature and extent of public grievances and the ways that services are being delivered.
Poverty-reduction strategies must address conflict-induced poverty and should mitigate factors such as regional or ethnic exclusion that could reignite the war. William Byrd, South Asia Poverty Reduction and Economic Management, argued that a conflict emphasis “would actually help concentrate people’s minds to have a more focused poverty-reduction strategy,” taking programs most critical to consolidating the peace.
Participatory processes in planning poverty-reduction strategies can in themselves contribute both to peace building and to establishing a new government as legitimate and responsive. But the dangers of over-promising are real. “In Sierra Leone,” Wam recalled, “there was a jingle used that essentially said, ‘The PRSP [Poverty Reduction Strategy Program] is coming and all our problems will disappear.’”
RSS