The IOB Evaluation Report 'Investing in Stability' and Beyond

On Thursday the fifth of December, the Knowledge Platform convened its first event in a series, dedicated to the evaluation of Dutch Foreign Policy in Fragile States. 

The aim of the event was for policy makers, practitioners and scholars to discuss the possible consequences and responses to the evaluation of the Dutch foreign policy in fragile states from the period 2005 -2011, executed by the Policy and Operations Evaluation Department (IOB) of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) evaluated. The discussions ultimately will lead towards more activities within the Knowledge Platform around the particular challenges for the fragile states policy as identified by the IOB.

Jeroen de Lange, public sector consultant and former MP, opened the debate by sharing his personal experience, working in fragile and conflict affected environments, in this case Juba South Sudan.  Ronald Wormgoor, strategic policy advisor at the Stabilization and Humanitarian Aid Department of the MFA briefly introduced Dutch foreign policy in fragile states. Right away, a very concrete question was posed; what will we do with the IOB’s recommendations to improve our policy and practice? And what is the role of the Knowledge Platform in this? Ronald’s speech was followed by a presentation of Geert Geut, Deputy Head IOB, who elaborated on the IOB evaluation and its main findings.

The following question was central to today’s panel discussion:

‘How do we apply – or how are we hindered from applying – context knowledge and current research to inform our assumptions and views about catalysts of positive change in fragile states?’

During the panel discussion, comprised of a multidisciplinary group of experts, a critical reflection on the ways practitioners, policy makers and researchers use context knowledge and current research to either support or nuance their views or theories about effective engagement and promoting stability in fragile states took place.  Panelist Chris underwood mentioned the lack of operational capacity to change established ways of working in line with revised context analysis and theory of change based programme design , as well as a limited capacity to adopt a flexible and experimental approach due to shifting levels of political support from The Hague. Panelist Dr. Willemijn Verkoren added the challenge of a current disconnect between science and policy; ‘In peace and conflict studies we see increasing criticism of what is called the ‘liberal peace’ (standard package of institution building, democracy promotion, rule of law, civil society, free market) that is disconnected from realities in developing countries, and lacks understanding of a limited ‘makeability’.

A first step was also taken in considering what hinders actors from using empirical evidence and/or academic discussions to review or revise their theories or programmes, and what might enable this process of critical reflection.  Panelist Geert Geut stated that time constraints often hinder policy makers from applying academic or/and contextual insights. Also, the uniqueness of every case makes it hard to apply what has been learned in other cases. It is important to focus more on lessons learned in this respect and find ways to tailor context analysis to these circumstances. Panelist Julia McCall underlined Geert Geut’s point by emphasizing the challenges faced with the execution and implementation of an adequate context analysis. She concluded by stating that context analysis should be attuned to what is needed, what time you have, and other priorities and motives.

After the panel discussion, the participants were divided among three breakout sessions, dedicated to more interactive discussions, as they delved deeper into

1. Theories of Change as a Critical Reflection of Foreign Policy in Fragile States, or
2. Science meets Foreign Policy Fragile States, or
3. Complexity in Fragility.

The groups were then asked to come back with a number of key questions that need further attention around the specific topic of the breakout session. Key questions identified were, amongst other things a) how can Theories of Change be harnessed to enable policy makers and practitioners to entertain “unconventional” options?, b) How to deal with the different motivations, logics and interests in the cooperation/ co-creation between academics and policymakers, and C) How can a new narrative or policy theory for the promotion of security unite different perspectives and interests for engagement in FCAS?

The outcomes of the debates will feed into the online IOB debate taking place from 6 January 2014 to halfway February 2014.  The online debate will further discuss the challenges that were central to today’s event but will also broaden its scope by including other relevant findings of the IOB Evaluation, such as those related to the Post-2015 International Development Agenda and the 3D approach. The attendees are encouraged to keep an eye on the website of the Knowledge Platform and to actively contribute to the online debate by posting their remarks and ideas. During the annual conference on 27 February, a total recap of the series of IOB events will be provided, potentially including concrete recommendations and advice for policy makers, practitioners and academics.