Advancing the SDGs amid fragility and violence

Economic crises, violent conflict, climate-related disasters, a global pandemic – we’ve seen it all over the last few years. Yet what we’ve yet to see is effective global action on the scale needed to reduce poverty (Sustainable Development Goal 1) and hunger (SDG 2), ensure healthy lives (SDG 3) and equitable education (SDG 4), empower women and girls (SDG 5), and a whole host of other SDGs in these contexts.

My aim in this article isn’t just to lament the state of the world today. I’m instead arguing for a reset in our thinking of and response to poverty eradication. This reset is needed to make the implementation of the SDGs – and especially the first multi-sectoral goal of poverty eradication –  more fit for purpose in fragile states.

The challenging contexts of fragility and poverty

Fragile states are defined here as contexts where effective institutions may be inadequate or defunct. This may be because their purposes are biased toward particular groups rather than serving citizens in general, or exacerbated by irregular or violent methods of control. Controlling powers may be corrupt or ideologically opposed to aspects of the SDGs.

This description could apply to a lot of countries today, both rich and poor. But in places with particularly high rates of extreme poverty, the challenge has especially serious consequences in terms of driving a vicious cycle of poverty and conflict.

Indeed, before COVID-19, almost half (48%) of the global population living in poverty lived in fragile, conflict, and violence-affected settings (FCVS). Looking forward, other estimates suggest that up to 85% of people in extreme poverty could be living in FCVS by 2030. This is not just a problem of low incomes in fragile states. Multidimensional poverty – reflecting low living standards and health and education deprivations – is also much higher in FCVS (48%) compared to other economies (19%).

Addressing the poverty–fragility challenge: a focus on peace

Charting a pathway to zero poverty in these contexts cannot only be about the typical poverty reduction toolkit (including pro-poor economic growth, social protection, free education and healthcare, and micro-economic and social measures). To be sure, this agenda remains critical. But it also needs to fundamentally be about peacebuilding (SDG 16) alongside poverty reduction (SDG 1), linked to a process of progressive social and political change.

This is because there is a two-way relationship between poverty and fragility. Poverty can contribute to state fragility – for example, where social exclusion or economic deprivations can weaken the social contract and act as a trigger for violence. Equally, protracted conflict or fragility can also drive impoverishment and chronic poverty as people may be killed or injured, assets and income destroyed, and livelihood opportunities may be depressed. The two need to be tackled together.

The humanitarian, development, and peace (HDP) nexus approach is one strategy that implicitly marries these twin goals. However, its operationalization remains challenging, largely due to limited funding and coordination. External powers that may help lead action within the HDP nexus can also be part of the problem – for example, where they may fund one-sided military actions, as seen in violent conflicts in Yemen and Gaza.

Another strategy in the attempt to stabilize, make peace, build justice, and work toward poverty reduction may be for countries to capitalize on what is working within their borders. For example, in Nigeria this could be the persistence of electoral competition – albeit with challenges – and relative stability in parts of the country. Spreading effective institutions and processes to conflict-affected areas of the country requires supporting civil society. It also calls for developing peace coalitions that can collectively address drivers of violence, and support community-led mediation and reconciliation when violence does occur.

Supporting multi-sectoral interventions

Promoting peace is a critical part of the equation. At the same time, the drivers of sustained poverty reduction are multi-sectoral. This means that poverty eradication must go hand in hand not only with peacebuilding but also with the other interconnected SDGs. As I argue in the paper Ending extreme poverty amidst fragility, conflict, and violence and summarize below, certain policy and investment areas have shown promise in helping to reduce poverty in FCVS.

Stabilizing economies to support pro-poor economic development

The World Bank has suggested that to break cycles of violence, we need to improve institutions, governance, security, justice, and job opportunities (linked to SDG 8 – decent work and economic growth). Alongside this, efforts are needed to stabilize economies in FCVS through:

• strengthening basic financial systems to enhance transparency and accountability
• developing the capacity to oversee the banking sector
• finding ways to raise funds domestically for public investments and essential services

Particular focus needs to be placed on distributing the benefits of these measures to reduce poverty and inequality.

For example, in Colombia, violent conflict during the 1990s and the country’s 1999 financial crisis was followed by a period of reforms in the early 2000s to stabilize subnational finances. These included a legislative act tying the General System of Participations (a mechanism to allow the national government to transfer resources to subnational governments for education, health, water, and sanitation) to inflation and annual growth. This was followed in 2010 by creating the General System for Royalties, within which the distribution of royalties was adjusted to privilege the poorest areas.

Supporting safe schools, quality healthcare and social protection amid violence

In conflict-affected and fragile regions, schools may be damaged or controlled by conflicting parties. There is thus a need to ensure that schools are safe and secure in these areas, building on commitments enshrined in SDG 4. It’s also essential to improve infrastructure, resources, and teacher training, and address distributional disparities.

There is also a growing emphasis on healthcare systems in conflict-affected regions, reflecting the connection between instability, poor health, and impoverishment. Many people in these areas have to pay for healthcare themselves, often pushing them deeper into poverty.

Social protection (for example, through school-feeding programs or health insurance provision) can be a means of improving the use of and access to these services, while being an important anti-poverty intervention. Transferring cash or other services digitally where connectivity is not destroyed by conflict or where in-person services may be inaccessible is one means of increasing coverage of such interventions. As learning from Afghanistan suggests, this needs to take place alongside improving distribution planning, identity verification, and financial and digital awareness.

Prioritizing a flexible, portfolio approach where possible

The above suggestions can take us forward in charting a pathway to zero poverty, but they cannot get us all the way there. In our period of intersecting crises, where conflict may be one but not necessarily the main source of state fragility, we need to move away from fire-fighting singular hazards. We must focus instead on responding to multiple, intersecting crises. This requires strong, multilateral partnerships, and supporting multi-sectoral policies and programs that address equity (to ensure that the poorest people do not get left or pushed behind) as well as risk (to prevent new sources of impoverishment).