Editorial
In States of Fragility 2020, the OECD cautioned that fragile contexts were at a critical juncture if they were to deliver the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Decisive action was needed to manage the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the people, communities and states that were furthest behind. That moment has passed. The world has fallen short on the promise of an equitable and inclusive recovery. By the end of June 2022, only one in three people in fragile contexts had received a dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, compared to three in four people in OECD countries. The pandemic has disproportionately affected women and girls’ health, education and well-being – particularly so in fragile contexts. This is also true for the protection of rights of refugees and those seeking asylum. The impact of climate change, biodiversity loss and the consequences of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine are contributing to a further deterioration of the global fragility landscape. We are in an era defined by multiple crises, shocks and uncertainty. Development co-operation needs to adapt because the scale and complexity of fragility are overtaking response. Fresh thinking and new approaches are urgently required.
Fragility is a global problem that hits hardest those who are least able to cope with it. States of Fragility 2022 identifies 60 fragile contexts, the largest number since the States of Fragility multidimensional framework was introduced. Of these, 15 are extremely fragile. Today, 24% of the world’s population and 73% of the world’s extreme poor live in fragile places. By 2030, these alarming numbers will have risen to at least 26% of the world’s population and 86% of the world’s extreme poor.
People’s experience of fragility varies. It often means violent conflict and poverty, and yet neither physical security nor economic growth is sufficient to guarantee a transition out of fragility. Indeed, there are now more middle-income than low-income fragile contexts considered fragile. And of the 60 contexts identified as fragile, 51 were not in a state of war in 2021.
Climate change, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation are increasingly exacerbating fragility. Fragile contexts account for only 4% of global CO2 emissions, but they are feeling the brunt of climate-related natural disasters. Even before the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, food insecurity was forecast to increase to record levels because of drought, pandemic and conflict-related economic dislocation. Of the 26 hunger hotspots identified by the Food and Agriculture Organization in 2022, 22 are fragile. There can be no doubt that focusing on fragility helps to draw attention to the root causes of hunger and vulnerability. There is growing evidence to show how sector-specific and individual project-based responses often fall short of their objectives. To redress this, we need to concentrate on the multidimensionality of fragility and put it at the core of development partners’ strategies.
Members of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) are the most generous donors to fragile contexts and are committed to mitigating the consequences of fragility for women and men living in poverty. Total DAC official development assistance (ODA) reached a record high of USD 179 billion in 2021. In 2020, DAC members’ assistance to fragile contexts reached its highest volume since 2006, at USD 61.9 billion.
DAC members are facing a cost-of-living crisis and rising defence budgets. It is more and more difficult to identify resources for ODA. Many DAC members have shown remarkable generosity during recent crises, but even though ODA is stable, demand is rising exponentially, especially in fragile places.
This report shows how important it is to sustain international support for building peace and stability. We know that conflict throws development gains into reverse. Only by tackling the causes of fragility head-on will the international community achieve resilient and peaceful futures.
We need to take a long-term perspective and sustain political commitment over years and decades. We must avoid being trapped in a cycle of short-term responses to chronic needs and protect resources aimed at addressing deep-rooted fragility and development challenges. We must also avoid despair. Early investment to prevent conflict is much cheaper – financially and in terms of human suffering – than paying later to deal with its consequences.
This report and the OECD DAC’s multidimensional fragility framework are a sound starting point for stronger multidimensional approaches to tackling crises and fragility and will help development partners navigate this complex landscape – and do better for women, children and men living in and with fragility.