Beyond Doing No Harm

The end of the Cold War brought with it a spike in the level of conflict worldwide that governments in general—and the development field specifically—were ill- equipped to address. Responding to the human cost and loss of development progress, a number of high- level organizations began to re-examine the role of conflict dynamics within development work.

Two trends began gathering momentum. One was a focus within the donor community on the role of development in addressing conflict. The other was a shift in the development community’s perception of its own neutrality regarding, and the role it must take in alleviating, the causes and conditions of conflict.

The first of these trends is reflected in statements within the Millennium Development Goals and publications from EUROPA (the European Union’s portal site), the UN and nearly every national bilateral development donor, placing peace and conflict center-stage. The U.S. government’s new Foreign Assistance Framework indicates that USAID policy now accords conflict resolution the same cross-cutting importance as gender and environmental issues, combined with a global focus on democratization and civil stabilization initiatives. Current donor focus places a premium on proposals and projects emphasizing a landscape approach that reliably assesses and addresses fragilities and conflict dynamics even if conflict itself is not the main focus. There is an increasing emphasis on projects that weave resilience-building elements into work done in strained societies so that they can safely absorb the changes stemming from development work.
 

Full PDF of article available from InterAction's website