Tracking peace and security expenditures in support of the SDGs

Bejraoui, Aussama; Gaveau, Valérie; Benn, Julia

doi:10.1787/02e67566-en

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The subsequent implications for the security sector have been significant. It had been one of the most effective examples of security sector reform on the continent (Ball, 2014 [32]), but moved to a situation of "defections and titfor-tat violence in the military, targeted killings of civilians -often with ethnic undertones -and the launching of armed rebellions by three separate movements" (Nantulya, 2019 [33]). The governing CNDD-FDD party also restructured executive oversight of the security sector to afford it greater control over the military (Nantulya, 2019[33]).…”

Section: Box 13 Political Will and Security Sector Reformmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peacebuilding in fragile contexts

Marley¹

2020

OECD Development Co-Operation Working Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peacebuilding thinking and practice have evolved significantly over the past decade. The business case for the effectiveness of peacebuilding has been established. Successful interventions underscore the importance of peacebuilding initiatives, as do the high-profile failures that occur when peacebuilding is absent, fragmented or insufficient. With the emergence of new approaches to peacebuilding led by the United Nations Peacebuilding Architecture Review, this paper examines the state of peacebuilding operations and finance in fragile contexts and, building on established trends and debates, identifies four areas that could be critical for driving progress on peacebuilding over the next decade. The paper is one of ten working papers supporting States of Fragility 2020. Together with the papers entitled "Diplomacy and peace in fragile contexts", "Conflict prevention in fragile contexts", and "Security actors in fragile contexts", It provides a comprehensive background to Chapter 2 on peace in States of Fragility 2020. This working paper was authored by Jonathan Marley, Policy Analyst in the Crises and Fragility team of the Global Partnerships and Policy Division (GPP) in the Development Cooperation Directorate (DCD) of the OECD. The paper, which is a background document to States of Fragility 2020, was written under the supervision of Cyprien Fabre (Policy Analyst, GPP/DCD) and Paloma Durán y Lalaguna (Head of Division, GPP/DCD). The author would like to thank Harsh Desai for supporting the development of Chapter 2 in this paper. Noting that all errors and omissions are his own, the author would also like to acknowledge the guidance, support and encouragement of Erik Forsberg, Kathleen Forichon, Cushla Thompson and Cyprien Fabre (OECD); Peter Batchelor & Rachel Scott (UNDP); Sara Batmanglich (World Bank); Hugh Macleman (World Food Programme), Jago Salmon (SIPRI/Centre for International Cooperation), Tyler Beckelman (USIP) and all of the members of the States of Fragility 2020 reference group. Thank you to Susan Sachs for her editorial support. Boxes Box 1.1. Zimbabwe: Fragility and peace Box 1.2. What is peacebuilding? Box 1.3. Political will and security sector reform Box 2.1. Non-DAC countries are prominent providers of ODA to fragile contexts | 7

show abstract

Section: Box 13 Political Will and Security Sector Reformmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peacebuilding in fragile contexts

Marley¹

2020

OECD Development Co-Operation Working Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Projects reported by provider countries in pillar II and channelled through the provider government, the private sector in provider country, provider country-based NGOs and universities or research institutes might actually correspond to projects that will ultimately take place in developing countries or third countries. Therefore, the figure provided is a rough estimate, based on a light investigation of the data 9. In Pillar II, activities supported by the European Union are treated as domestic activities 10.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Lessons learnt from the 2019 Total Official Support for Sustainable Development (TOSSD) data survey

Bejraoui¹,

Gaveau²,

Berbegal-Ibanez³

et al. 2020

OECD Development Co-Operation Working Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abbreviations and acronyms Executive summary 1 Introduction 2 Methodology and definitions used in this study 2.1. Objectives of the study 2.2. Methodology 2.2.1. Methodology and definitions used in this study 2.3. Limitations 3 Lessons learnt on the usefulness of TOSSD as a measurement framework for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) era 3.1. TOSSD responds to developing countries' needs for information on external financing for sustainable development (pillar I) 3.1.1. TOSSD has the potential to provide a much higher transparency of external SDGfinancing in developing countries 3.1.2. Country case studies: Indonesia and Afghanistan 3.2. TOSSD can fill a key information gap on financing for international public goods that support the achievement of the SDGs (pillar II) 3.2.1. TOSSD can inform the international community about investments in international public goods that are important for the achievement of the SDGs 3.2.2. Tracking investments in international public goods is essential for monitoring the financing of the SDGs 4 Lessons learnt on data quality and data coverage 4.1. Lessons learnt on data quality and data coverage in pillar I 4.1.1. More efforts will be needed to fulfil the potential of TOSSD to provide a full picture of external public resources in developing countries 4.1.2. The Task Force should clarify the classification of certain activities directly supporting specific countries | 9 LESSONS LEARNT FROM THE 2019 TOTAL OFFICIAL SUPPORT FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (TOSSD) DATA SURVEY © OECD 2020 4.1.3. Particular attention should be given to improving the level of transparency and granularity of the data 4.2. Lessons learnt on data quality and coverage in pillar II 4.2.1. The actual test for the data coverage and quality in pillar II will be the data collection over the next few years 4.2.2. Better qualitative information can facilitate the analysis of pillar II data 4.3. The implementation of the SDG focus in providers' systems should improve the reporting on this field 4.4. Understanding data users and their needs 5 Lessons learnt on eligibility issues5.1. The need to operationalise the concept of environmental sustainability? 5.2. What is meant by "support" in TOSSD? 5.3. The case of official-supported export credits 5.4. The survey revealed potential double counting issues of general budget support in countries that are both recipients and providers of TOSSD resources 6 Lessons learnt on the data collection 6.1.

show abstract

Tracking peace and security expenditures in support of the SDGs

Abstract: This document, as well as any data and any map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

Cited by 2 publications

References 4 publications

Peacebuilding in fragile contexts

Peacebuilding in fragile contexts

Lessons learnt from the 2019 Total Official Support for Sustainable Development (TOSSD) data survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About