Engaging in fragile and conflict-affected states inevitably involves risk. In these states, the politics are volatile, institutions weak, and security often precarious. It is now well recognised that risks exist on a number of levels: contextual, institutional and programmatic. It is also increasingly understood that donors must be willing to address risks in their programming and take steps to mitigate them, instead of developing programmes that are based on risk avoidance. The risks of not engaging – of avoiding government institutions, of only working in areas that are easiest to access, of only tackling issues where short-term results are guaranteed – can exacerbate fragility in the long-run. This report demonstrates that there is no universal ‘blue print’ for effective risk management in fragile states. The risks that are faced differ from country to country, and require context-specific mitigation measures.
However, it points to a number of fundamentals that need to be in place if donors are to manage risk effectively. First of all, donors need to ensure that their understanding of risk is in fact grounded in ‘country realities.’ Where they understand the operating context, donors feel more comfortable taking and managing risks. Where country context is less well understood, this report shows that there is a greater chance of lapsing into programming based on risk avoidance.