“Numerous global actors and institutions have raised awareness within the development and conflict management communities that large portions of the world’s poor are increasingly concentrated in conflict-affected and fragile states. The UN Peacebuilding Commission, theg7+, the International Dialogue, the International Network on Conflict and Fragility, and the2011 World Development Report have all made essential contributions to this effort.
Despite increased awareness of the link between conflict and development, including peace, stability, and governance issues in the post-2015 agenda remains controversial. We have found three reasons for this:
1. The Rhetoric
The UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 Development Agenda made an early misstep in its report Realizing the Future We Want for All. Released in June 2012, this report included “peace and security” as one of the four core dimensions of their vision for the future. Framing the issue in terms of the UN’s “peace and security” agenda, rather than through the lens of a development-security linkage, invokes the interventionist language of Chapter VII of the UN Charter. It was interpreted to suggest a securitization of development issues, implying a role for the UN Security Council. And it encompassed a wide range of security challenges beyond those relevant to poverty reduction and economic development. The use of the “peace and security” framing drew criticism in the UN and played into the hands of those actors that were already predisposed to resist the inclusion of peace in development discussions.”