OVERCOMINGFRAGILITY IN AFRICA

Forging a new European approach

Presentation of the ERD 2009Stockholm, 22nd October 2009

Giorgia GiovannettiEuropean University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre

and University of Firenze

Need to reassess EU development policy towards SSA fragile countries

• The framework: 2008–09 crisis– The crisis has hit the budgets of the EU: huge debt

overhangs, unemployment and social problems. – The crisis has hit fragile countries, despite low financial

integration: high social costs, halt to progress.

• SSA’s dire socioeconomic situation calls for a renewed commitment but EU domestic concerns may displace attention and funds.

• The EU must keep/strengthen its commitment: cost of disengagement are too high (internally and for fragile countries). So is the cost of inaction.

• But need for efficient policies.

The European Report on DevelopmentThe European Report on Development

• The 2009 European Report on Development analyses:– the costs and characteristics of fragility – the capacity of fragile countries to cope with negative

shocks (2008-09 financial crisis), – the EU’s current engagement with fragile countries – the potential for EU development policy to assist

national stakeholders in enhancing resilience.

• The focus is on Sub-Saharan Africa: a region which is lagging behind in the sphere of state consolidation;

• Sub-Saharan African countries account for most fragile states, no matter how measured.

Which Sub-Saharan African countries are

fragile for the ERD analysis?

Why a focus on countries in situation Why a focus on countries in situation of fragility?of fragility?

Fragility is a cost in itself: most fragile countries are in the last quintile of HDI Indices and lag behind in most MDGs

In fragile countries there are forms of violation of basic human rights to life and security

Fragile countries are a fertile land to organized crime and illicit trafficking

The interaction of fragility with the crisis increases the likelihood of breakout of conflicts

“ bad neighbor effects”

- Economic channel: forgone economic growth- Political instability - regional markets for weapons - cross-border movement of refugees- illicit flows

Threat to global security: External factors crucial in the initial revival of piracy (allegiances of over-fishing and dumping of toxic waste against foreign trawlers); controversial relationship between fragility and terrorism in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Common structural weaknesses

Inabilities to mobilize domestic resources and dependence on external sources

Low levels of human development (especially for women)

Bad governanceLow population density and low level of

urbanization, but young population Export very concentrated and

dependent on natural resourcesWeak soft and hard infrastructure (and

investment environment)

But also wide heterogeneity

Historical factors (colonization, institution building pattern etc)

Economic growth rates and levels of income per capita

Life expectancyCapacity to attract FDILevel of foreign reservesExternal Debt

Low capacity to cope with shocks

Resilience: low in most fragilecountries

Time to care about implementation

• Need to narrow the implementation gap between the theoretical framework and the design of specific interventions.

• Need to work with recognized informal institutions to understand the local context

• Need to adapt the principle of ownership to deal with incapacitated or illegitimate state institutions.

• Need to exploit the comparative advantage given by large range of EU policy instruments but being aware of possible indirect effects (security interferes with aid….).

Aid is only a part of development policies in fragile countries

• EU trade policy should be more responsive to the specific needs of SSA fragile states.

• There is a need to shift from responsive to

preventive interventions. – Such a shift could require moving towards a regional

approach to fragility, because the bad neighbour effects could jeopardize state building and social cohesion.

• The security development nexus has to be properly handled.

ERD suggests 5 key priorities to “narrow the gap”

• Support state-building and social cohesion.• Overcome the divide between short-term

needs and long-term resilience.• Enhance human and social capital.• Support better regional governance,

including regional integration processes • Promote security and development in the

region

EU comparative advantages• Large array of policies: trade, agriculture, fisheries,

security, migration, climate change, environment, social dimension of globalisation, employment, research and development, information society, energy, and governance

• Large experience providing a very useful “toolkit” to deal with fragility: during its own history of enlargement, the EU faced problems of transition from military dictatorship to democracy (e.g. Greece, Portugal and Spain in the 1970) and integration of very different countries.

• While can help building infrastructures, its comparative advantages lies in developing human capital and institutions

To have an impact, the EU should:

• Speak with one voice

• Be committed to long-term policies, avoid shifts in policy objectives, since fragile countries have structural and persistent problems, and a pervasive aspect of fragility is the inability to follow long-term objectives.

• Find the right partner to implement the policies. Donors and recipients may not be in a position to best implement programmes. It might be appropriate to separate policy formulation from fund allocations

• Understand that state building and social cohesion in Sub-Saharan African countries are long evolutionary processes, taking new, diverse and unpredictable forms at the country and regional levels. Such processes require constant attention and the right institutional support on the ground.

The challenge is responding to crisis The challenge is responding to crisis while solving Long Term weaknesseswhile solving Long Term weaknesses

• Short term policies have to be compatible with long term objectives

• The best for fragile African countries will be “do it alone”: mobilizing domestic resources, tap domestic saving, exploit regional integration

• Given dysfunctional state institutions, this is difficult, hence there is a role for donors

• Low resilience and short term answers to problems mean just “surviving”

Land investments for agricultural production in fragile countries

Source: World Investment Report 2009, UNCTAD

In enhancing their resilience, SSA fragile countries should account for internal and external dynamics

INTERNAL DYNAMICS: Generalized move towards

better governance and institution transparency

Important role for African Union

Establishment of Free Trade Areas

Infrastructural works: corridors (financial resources)

Fragile countries have limited capacity to cope (low fiscal space and no safety nets)

Likelihood of conflicts (social unrest) increases with a decline in income

EXTERNAL DYNAMICS: SSA is back to be at the

centre of interest of different international actors.

New emerging actors (China), particularly active

New approach to development from EU, member countries, US etc. (less conditionality, principle of ownership)

A possible role for EUA possible role for EU

• Help fragile countries to lengthen the time horizon of their policies. Short term policies do not allow to overcome fragility

• Dealing with fragile countries means interacting with illegitimate, unrepresentative or weak rulers: difficult for aid to reach the poorest and to operate in a long term perspective. Hence, it is important to interact with informal (recognized) institutions

• Inaction has very high costs to: contributes to persistence of development gaps

In summaryIn summary• Overcoming State fragility is a priority, especially in the

current context of crisis.

• The EU and other donors should not reduce engagement in fragile countries, though fragility tends to limit aid effectiveness.

• Engagement should take into account forces which can amplify or reduce fragility.

• Common characteristics of fragile countries allow to identify policy priorities of fragile countries and for the EU’s interventions

• Given the high heterogeneity among fragile countries, moving from priorities to specific prescriptions and guidelines for intervention requires deeply rooted knowledge of the ground and sometimes to find the appropriate partner for implementation.

Thanks!

ERD2009 Team

Low levels of human development

HDI: Of 179 countries, fragile countries rank between 128 for Sao Tome down to 179 for Sierra Leone, with the average HDI for fragile countries at 0.459 in 2006

Source: ERD elaboration based on UNDP Human Development Report (2008) and African Economic Outlook (2009).

Country groups

2008 HDI

Adult literacy rate, 2006

Under-five mortality rate (per 1,000), 2008

Maternal mortality ratio adjusted, 2000

Fragile 0.46 59.2 138 976

Nonfragile 0.54 66.4 97 614

SSA 0.50 62.9 123 824 

Exposure to the worst forms of violations of basic human rights

Conflicts: Collier (2007) estimates that of people in the countries of the bottom billion, a proxy for the list of fragile countries, 73% have recently experienced or are in a civil war. Heavy impacts especially on most vulnerable groups such as women.

Food insecurity: 18 of 36 countries in food crisis requiring external assistance from FAO are fragile

Source: ERD elaboration on African Economic Outlook (2009) and FAOSTAT

Country groups Under-nourishment prevalence (percentage of total population) 2003-2005

Food availability (Kcal/person/day) 2003-2005

Fragile 35 2 097

Nonfragile 25 2 367

SSA 30 2 212

Progress towards MDGs is Progress towards MDGs is disappointing...disappointing...

Countries in situation of fragility in grey

A telling pyramid

Fragile countries

EU-27

0-4

10-14

20-24

30-34

40-44

50-54

60-64

70-74

80-84

90-94

100+

Male Female

0-4

10-14

20-24

30-34

40-44

50-54

60-64

70-74

80-84

90-94

100+

Male Female

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Nig

eria

Gam

bia,

The

Sud

anD

jibut

iC

omor

osS

ierra

Leo

neLi

beria

Zim

babw

eM

aurit

ania

Cot

e d'

Ivoi

reTo

goC

amer

oon

Ang

ola

Gui

nea

Nig

erE

ritre

aC

had

Sao

Tom

e an

dB

urun

diC

ongo

, Rep

.G

uine

a-B

issa

uC

entra

l Afr

ican

Con

go, D

em.

Rep

.M

aurit

ius

Sou

th A

fric

aB

otsw

ana

Nam

ibia

Ken

yaG

hana

Zam

bia

Sey

chel

les

Sw

azila

ndU

gand

aE

thio

pia

Leso

tho

Tanz

ania

Mal

awi

Rw

anda

Moz

ambi

que

Cap

e V

erde

Mad

agas

car

Bur

kina

Fas

oS

eneg

alG

abon

Mal

iE

quat

oria

l Gui

nea

Ben

in

Difficult investment environment:Ease of Doing Business Rank of SSA

Fragile countries are at the bottom of the over 180 countries

Economic factors may help/hinder Economic factors may help/hinder fragile countriesfragile countries

• Trade openness: potential gains from trade but possible disputed rents from trade.

• FDI may improve the efficiency of the allocation of domestic resources, but without appropriate incentives, can contribute to bad governance and corruption.

• Natural resource wealth: taxes from resource extraction contribute to most government revenues in fragile states. But fragile states are also likely to fall into vicious circles linking bad resource management to fading state capabilities—the resource curse. Resource abundance has a positive effect on growth in countries with good institutions (Botswana), and a negative effect in those with poor institutions (Zimbabwe).

• Food security management: the occurrence of a food crisis can produce an adverse impact on state fragility, exacerbating the perceptions of the state’s incapacity or unwillingness to address chronic food insecurity or to protect its citizens from food shocks.

Vulnerability: no clear pattern