These principles mark a departure from the traditional model of UN missions and the direct service delivery approach. In the context of fragile states in particular, this new approach ensures a focus on both the long-term goal of building effective states, as well as on the short-term goal of service delivery.

In fragile states, however, issues of national ownership and the alignment of donor support pose special challenges. First, national ownership can be an abstraction when societies are divided and government is not representative. Second, when the state is illegitimate or too weak, the alignment of donor support is not feasible (and sometimes not desirable either).

A common approach

The concept of co-production is a model in which elements of national sovereignty are entrusted to international actors. International experience shows that temporary co-production between states and international actors is the norm rather than the exception, and has been the dominant model in the recent transitions in Afghanistan, Burundi, Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Timor-Leste. Co-production can range from shared sovereignty (e.g. the UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo) and shared management (e.g. Liberia’s Governance and Economic Management Assistance Programme), to the outsourcing of key state functions (e.g. customs management by Crown Agents in Mozambique) or the delivery of services in sectors such as education, health and water, which is often outsourced to NGOs and private companies.

Co-production can have several benefits. If a programme or project is particularly sensitive, for example, it may best be designed and/or managed by an outsider. Army, police and judicial reform, and anti-corruption programmes are typical examples. Co-production can also allow for the management of donor funds by auditable, accountable organisations such as independent firms, UN agencies or international NGOs. Implementing agencies (international and local) can bid to provide services in sectors like health and education.

However, if co-production does not explicitly aim to build capacity, it is like pouring water in the sand. Opting for direct service delivery because of weak state capacity and accountability to society will not in itself contribute to remedying such weaknesses. Co-production can in fact undermine the state.

Two approaches to improve their engagement in fragile states

Donors can use two approaches to improve their engagement in fragile states. First, co-production must be adapted as capacity and accountability improve. In Haiti, for example, under the interim government (2004-2006), donors supported the capacity development of the government while also providing services directly. As of 2007, however, the elected government has adopted a capacity development strategy that will permit donors to move away from direct service delivery and concentrate on building national capacity.

Second, donors must keep in mind that capacity development is the end goal. They should therefore resort to direct policy-setting and programme management only in exceptional circumstances. A politically sensitive programme is best designed by reform-minded stakeholders, with international technical assistance as necessary, rather than by outsiders in Washington or Geneva. While this may be difficult and time consuming, it creates space for appropriate political settlements. Donors should also focus on strengthening public financial management and procurement systems as a matter of priority. In cases of corruption, it is usually more constructive in the long run to address the issue than simply to suspend aid. Direct service delivery should be framed by sector and regional policies, where they exist, and implementing agencies should inform and empower local authorities whenever possible.

Aligning donor strategies and creating national ownership are difficult in fragile states. Smart co-production can contribute to service delivery while creating a more capable and accountable state.