Conflict and development: Helen Clark discusses the UN development programme's approach to breaking the cycle of fragility, violence and poverty.

• Author: Clark, Helen
• Position: Cover story

The world cannot achieve the eradication of extreme poverty if corners of it continue to be wracked by violent conflict and fragility. Problems affecting fragile states include weak governance and lack of resilience to potential internal and external shocks, such as climate change. High levels of youth unemployment are also a worrying factor. In states that have experienced violent conflict core institutions tend to be weak, and human capital depleted. Societies emerging from conflict often have minimal capacity to address legacies of war. If the underlying factors which drove the conflict are not addressed, the stage may be set for relapse into conflict. The UHDP's role is to try to dismantle the complex conflict-fragility-poverty trap.

**********

The last time I spoke at the NZIIA was as prime minister in 2004. That seems a lifetime ago. My theme then was the importance of New Zealand's multilateral engagement on major global challenges. Since then I have had the opportunity to become rather more directly engaged in many of those challenges myself, through my role as UNDP administrator and chair of the UN Development Group.

From its foundation in 1945 as the world's premier multilateral institution, the United Nations has been a driving force for development. Indeed, development features as one of the three inter-linked pillars of the United Nations' mandate, alongside human rights and peace and security. It is hard to make sustained progress on any one of those 'pillars' without advances on the others.

My theme here is the impact of conflict and armed violence on development, and the importance of creating more peaceful and cohesive environments within which development can thrive. This matters: the world cannot achieve the eradication of extreme poverty if corners of our world continue to be wracked by violent conflict and fragility.

There can be no doubt that, at the global level, huge progress has been made on reducing extreme poverty. The momentum generated since 2000 by the Millennium Development Goals has also brought focus and directed action and resources to that effort. The target in MDG 1 of having the global rate of extreme poverty halved from its 1990 level by 2015 was reached in 2010, five years ahead of schedule. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has called this progress 'the most successful global anti-poverty push in history'.

Progress has been achieved on many other MDG targets, too, not least on improved access to safe drinking water, better living conditions for around 200 million slum-dwellers, and on primary school enrolment and improved infant and child health. But such progress is not yet universal, nor is forward momentum guaranteed. Much work remains. Abject poverty and under-development persist, not least where people lack productive employment and livelihoods; where environmental resources are being depleted and natural disasters are recurrent; and where conflict, armed violence, high levels of crime, and weak governance exist. Added together, these factors perpetuate extreme poverty.

Telling figures

The World Bank calculates that countries affected by conflict and fragility lag behind the most in MDG achievement, accounting for 77 per cent of infant deaths, 65 per cent of the world's population lacking access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation, and 60 per cent of the world's under-nourished. People who live in these countries are twice as likely as people living in other developing countries to see their children die before they reach the age of five, and more than three times as likely to be unable to send their children to school. In future, the extremely poor in our world will be increasingly concentrated in these states, as countries not torn apart by conflict and with more effective governance pull ahead. Estimates of the concentration of people living in poverty in these fragile states range from one-third of the global total today to projections of half by 2018, and two-thirds and upwards by 2030.

This article will focus on what can be done to help lift the countries and communities left behind in the 'conflict-fragility-poverty trap'. That characterisation of the mutually reinforcing impact of conflict, fragility, and poverty on development as a 'trap' draws from an extensive body of academic and policy literature, including from Jeffrey Sachs, Paul Collier, the World Bank's 2011 World Development Report, and many other sources. I will:

* discuss what drives conflict and fragility;

* offer some reflections on the impact of conflict and fragility on development; and

* share the UNDP's current thinking on and approach to supporting countries to break out of the conflict fragility-poverty trap to move along a path to sustainable development and peace.

Weak capacity

What is a fragile state? The OECD defines a fragile state as 'one which has weak capacity to carry out basic governance functions and lacks the ability to develop mutually constructive relations with society'. Both the OECD and the g7+ group, the latter representing a group of eighteen countries which have self-identified as fragile and conflict-affected, have advanced the notion of a 'fragility spectrum' to reflect variations in the degree of fragility of individual states. In this concept, most countries are more or less fragile, and even stable countries may have sub-national pockets of fragility where armed conflict and/or criminal violence take their toll.

As a group, the fragile states often share a number of characteristics which make it difficult for them to get ahead. These may include weak governance, poor relations between state and society, and a lack of resilience to potential internal and external shocks, including to stresses emanating from climate change and natural hazards. They may also include countries overwhelmed by rapid urbanisation and the impact of burgeoning young populations without enough access to work and opportunity.

No single factor determines fragility, and it may be masked by the existence of relatively strong, often authoritarian, institutions, as has been seen in the Arab states region. Rivalry between ethnic groups and along other lines can also drive fragility, especially where authorities lack the political will, impartiality, and/or the ability to intercede and resolve grievances.

Changing violence

All the above factors can contribute to violent conflict, which impedes development. The face of conflict itself is changing: armed conflict has dropped overall in the last two decades. Yet while there has been a significant decline in inter-state conflict and barde-related deaths, smaller-scale violence and the number of violence-related deaths have increased. Current forms of armed violence include criminal activity, local conflict over land and natural resources, and inter-ethnic or communal violence.

An estimated 87 per cent of deaths directly resulting from armed violence are rooted in organised crime and gang activities, with the highest rates found in Latin America and the Caribbean...