Briefing Note
What the New Deal can learn from the
Human Security Approach
2014
Niels Terpstra, Rens Willems, Georg Frerks and Gabriella Vogelaar
Centre for Conflict Studies Utrecht University, UPEACE The Hague, Global
Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC)
This briefing note is based on the scoping study: What the New Deal can learn from the human
security approach, Scoping study human security: a multi-level grounded approach towards the New
Deal, by Niels Terpstra, Rens Willems, Georg Frerks and Tomás Chang Pico (2014). The Hague:
Knowledge Platform Security & Rule of Law. Also online available on: www.kpsrl.org
What the New Deal can Learn from the Human Security Approach
2014
INTRODUCTION
This briefing note is intended for policymakers (donors and g7+ governments i), civil society
organizations, practitioners and academics working on the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile
States. It is based on a scoping study that analysed the experiences with the implementation of the
Human Security Approach in practice as elucidated in the literature, and aims at highlighting lessons
that are of relevance to the successful design and implementation of the New Deal. This was done
because of the apparent convergence between the Human Security Approach and aspects of the
New Deal as indicated in table 1 below, and the fact that the implementation of the Human Security
Approach has been only partially successful. Experiences with implementing programmes inspired
by a Human Security Approach have revealed a series of lessons and critical conditions for
successful implementation. This briefing notes aims to translate those lessons and insights into
recommendations for implementing the New Deal.
Table 1: Characteristics of the Human Security Approach and the New Deal
Human Security Approach
The New Deal
Originating from the UNDP Human
Development Report (1994)ii and
elaborated by UN OCHA (2009)iii the
Human Security Approach and Concept
comprise the following characteristics:
Evolved from the Kinshasa Statement, the
Accra Agenda for Action, the Dili
Declaration and the Monrovia Roadmap,
the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile
Statesiv consists of:








Human Security is people-centred
(not state-centred) and participatory
Human Security is multi-dimensional
and multi-sectoral
Human Security requires a holistic
analysis and multi-sectoral and
multi-actor responses
Human Security requires a contextspecific approach
Civil society involvement is essential
for responses to Human Security
issues
The Human Security Approach is
prevention-oriented through a
protection and empowerment
framework






A focus on “people’s security”
Five Peacebuilding and Statebuilding
Goals (PSGs): legitimate politics;
security; justice; economic
foundations; revenues and services
Fragility assessments, country
compacts, and other instruments
that serve the New Deal vision
One vision, one plan, for the
pathways out of fragility
Harmonization of aid with national
and local contexts
Enhanced civil society involvement
and support for civil society capacity
Increased ownership of fragile and
conflict-affected states: donors and
g7+ countries are partners on equal
footing
Mutual trust and accountability
between the stakeholders involved
The findings of this scoping study allow two types of usage, namely conceptual and instrumental.
The conceptual use of findings leads to further thinking and deeper understanding by furthering
academic debates and increasing knowledge, while the instrumental use of findings leads to the
formulation of a follow-up decision or action.v In this case the conceptual usage concerned an
1
What the New Deal can Learn from the Human Security Approach
2014
inventory of critical issues and lessons with regard to the implementation of the Human Security
Approach and the application thereof on the New Deal. The conceptual findings are presented in
the first part of this briefing note. Next we have tried and formulated recommendations for
implementing the New Deal so that it may benefit from the lessons and issues identified in the
earlier part. These recommendations are presented in the second part. We believe these
recommendations are timely at this particular juncture, as the New Deal is still in a phase of early
development.
I. FINDINGS
Since it was launched in the seminal UNDP Human Development Report of 1994, the of Human
Security Concept and Approach have both been praised and criticisedvi. With the New Deal
important aspects of the Human Security discourse have become revitalised. By advocating peoplecentred security provision; multi-sectoral solutions in peace- and statebuilding; increased
involvement of civil society; and context-specific approaches for g7+ countries to transition out of
fragility, the New Deal can indeed be seen as a continuation of the Human Security discourse. On
the other hand, the scoping study identified several issues that require further scrutiny and policy
attention, presented hereunder.
Ownership
The New Deal emphasises increased ownership and leadership of fragile and conflict-affected states
on their pathways out of fragility. However, whether such increased ownership and leadership will
materialize depends on how ‘ownership’ becomes operationalised and practiced. Previous
experience with the implementation of the Human Security Approach has shown that well-intended
rhetoric may only to a limited extent be transferred into actual practice. With regard to the New
Deal, two factors are identified that threaten local ownership and leadership.
First, budget cuts put donors increasingly under pressure to minimise risks and show quick results.
Hence, donors may not sufficiently be able or willing to transfer decision-making power and
responsibilities to the g7+ governments. The development of shared indicators by international
consultants, for example, was heavily criticised by the g7+ due to limited involvement of the global
South.vii Fragility assessments were also written for the most part by donors, resulting in limited
national ownership. In conclusion, the discourse on new relationships between donors and g7+
countries does not guarantee changes in practice, as the behaviour and habits of the international
community versus g7+ countries will not change overnight.
Second, at the level of g7+ governments, the contact between donors and fragile states mainly runs
through departments of finance and planning. Accountability of these departments is often
oriented towards the donors and hardly towards their own parliaments and societies. This dynamic
contradicts the very purpose of accountability to the own society and the national ownership of the
implementation process. Moreover, vital departments for achieving the PSGs, such as the
presidency, departments of justice and defence may insufficiently be involved to guarantee the
commitments formulated in the New Deal.
Civil society involvement
The New Deal advocates enhanced civil society involvement in achieving the PSGs. ‘Legitimate
politics’ (PSG I) and ‘people’s security’ (PSG II) are, at least partly, to be acquired through civil
society networks. Similarly, in the Human Security Approach it is considered essential to include civil
society into the identification of, and response to, Human Security issues. In current policy practice,
2
What the New Deal can Learn from the Human Security Approach
2014
however, state-centric strategies that intentionally or unintentionally exclude civil society still
appear to be the norm.viii
Both from a Human Security and New Deal perspective, limited involvement of civil society by
national governments and donors, challenges the objectives of inclusiveness and representation.
The composition of civil society itself must also be scrutinised, as Civil Society Organisations (CSOs)
may not fully represent all sections of society. In addition, the relationship between governments
and civil society is complex and difficult, and is often marked by a lack of trust. In fragile contexts
civil society often lacks adequate organisational structures and capacities, rendering capacity
building and institutional development of CSOs of the essence.
Context-specificity and universality
The New Deal stresses that the international community has previously provided aid in
decontextualized, technocratic ways. The need to tailor aid to specific contexts has been promoted
in the Human Security Approach and is also incorporated into the New Deal. The development of
country-specific indicators into fragility assessments could be seen as a sign of this. At the same
time, the earlier Paris Declaration and the New Deal itself stem from a need to organise aid and
assess effectiveness along a set of universal principles, which may clash with the need to be
context-specific.
Diverging priorities
The New Deal advocates an aid architecture with the g7+ governments, donors, and other
stakeholders as partners on an equal footing. This equality means that the diverging priorities of the
different stakeholders have all to be considered. As a consequence, gender became contested
during the New Deal negotiations, and has not received the prominence that some donors might
have liked.
The Human Security Approach advocates agency of individuals and communities ‘on the ground’
and prioritises local levels of governance. Engagement with local actors implies engaging with local
understandings and practices of security and development. This does not mean that intervening
actors should discard norms and practices such as democracy and human rights, but responses to
Human Security issues then become a process of negotiation over what constitutes Human Security
and how it can be attained in a given context.ix The outcomes of these negotiations may vary among
different g7+ countries or within countries themselves.
Hybrid political orders
The New Deal generally acknowledges the significant role of non-state actors in peacebuilding and
statebuilding. When it comes to implementation, however, donors continue to rely on the state as
the first point of entry. Moreover, the New Deal document and indicators insufficiently address the
difficulties of working in the hybrid political orders that exist in most of the g7+ countries.
Local-global nexus
The New Deal introduces country fragility assessments and country compacts. The indicators of the
fragility assessments serve to analyse the current status of a particular fragile state and how it
develops over the years measured along five PSGs. However, these indicators do not take into
account the influence of external factors. This is particularly problematic as fragile states are
inherently more vulnerable to external shocks. Human Security debates have underlined the
interdependency of transnational threats and local security conditions. Examples of these threats
are the global drug trade, struggles for natural resources and exploitative relationships between
3
What the New Deal can Learn from the Human Security Approach
2014
first-world and developing countries. The attainment of the New Deal goals will be hampered if
these factors will not be taken into account.
Prevention
An apparent omission of the New Deal is its lack of attention to prevention. As the recent political
crisis in South Sudan shows, the relatively optimistic fragility assessment in 2012 missed relevant
underlying causes of renewed conflict. This points to the need to expand the fragility assessments
with a comprehensive and country-specific set of indicators that address a larger variety of
underlying and interdependent causes of conflict.
II. RECOMMENDATIONS
Ownership
Donors should persistently follow the New Deal vision and allow ownership of the g7+ countries
during the further development of indicators, country compacts and other New Deal
implementation processes, while donors and g7+ countries alike should engage all relevant
government departments into the New Deal implementation.
Civil society involvement
Donors and g7+ governments should include local CSOs in formulating country fragility
assessments, country compacts, and other New Deal implementation instruments, and strengthen
CSOs’ capacities and resources where needed. To achieve this, g7+ governments should maintain
civilian space and room for accountability towards the public, with governments and CSOs
elaborating mutual confidence building measures.
Context-specificity and diverging priorities
Donors and Northern NGOs should work in a context-specific way and be sensitive to the equal
status of local partners in the New Deal dialogue, requiring negotiations about agenda setting and
implementation.
Engagement in hybrid political orders
Donors and g7+ governments should recognise the existence of hybrid political orders and
governance structures, and collaborate where needed and possible with traditional leaders and
non-state actors.
Local-global nexus
Donors, g7+ governments and NGOs involved in the New Deal should identify and take into account
global and regional factors impacting state fragility and adversely affecting potential solutions,
including global drug trade, struggles for natural resources and exploitative relationships between
first-world and developing countries.
Prevention
Donors and g7+ government policymakers should develop and adopt preventive instruments to
attain the goals set out in the New Deal.
4
What the New Deal can Learn from the Human Security Approach
2014
NOTES
i
The g7+ is a self-declared association of fragile and conflict-affected countries. The main objective of the g7+ is to share
experiences and advocate for reforms to the way in which the international community engages in fragile states. A full list
of the g7+ countries is available in the corresponding scoping study of this briefing note.
ii
UNDP (1994) Human Development Report 1994. Oxford: University Press.
iii
UN OCHA (2009) Human Security in Theory and Practice. Application of the Human Security Concept and the United
Nations Trust Fund for Human Security. Human Security Unit. New York: UN OCHA.
iv
Members of Roundtable 7 Third High-level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, Accra (2008) Kinshasa Statement. 2 July; Members
of the Third High-level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, Accra (2008) Accra Agenda for Action. 2 – 4 September; International
Dialogue for Peacebuilding and Statebuilding (IDPS) (2010) Dili Declaration. 10 April; IDPS (2011) Monrovia Roadmap. July;
IDPS (2011) A New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States. Endorsed during the Fourth High-level Forum on Aid Effectiveness
in Busan (29 November – 1 December).
v
Patton, M. Q. (2001). Evaluation, knowledge management, best practices, and high quality lessons learned. The American
Journal of Evaluation, 22(3), 329-336.
vi
For a brief overview of criticisms and praise, see section 1.2 and 1.3 (p. 12-17) of the full report What the New Deal can
learn from the human security approach, Scoping study human security: a multi-level grounded approach towards the New
Deal, by Niels Terpstra, Rens Willems, Georg Frerks and Tomás Chang Pico (2014). The Hague: Knowledge Platform for
Security & Rule of Law. Also online available on: http://www.kpsrl.org/
vii
McCandless, E. (2013). Wicked Problems in Peacebuilding and Statebuilding: Making Progress in Measuring Progress
Through the New Deal. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 19(2), 227-248.
viii
GPPAC, The Civil Society Network for Human Security and IKV Pax Christi (2013) The Human Security Approach in Conflict
Prevention and Peacebuilding. A Civil Society Position Paper.
ix
See for example: Richmond, O.P. (2010: 53) “Post-colonial hybridity and the return of human security.” in: D. Chandler
and N. Hynek (ed.) Critical Perspectives on Human Security: Rethinking Emancipation and Power in International Relations.
London/New York: Routledge.
5