Fragile contexts undermine the ability of individuals to live decent, secure lives and of communities to reduce poverty. Addressing fragility takes generations and requires humanitarian, development and peace efforts to be co-ordinated (the “Nexus approach”). It requires long-term partnerships and financing strategies that go beyond programming cycles.
Engaging in contexts facing highest fragility
Abstract
Fragility is the combination of exposure to risk and the insufficient capacity of the state, systems and/or communities to manage, absorb or mitigate those risks. Poverty, violence and environmental degradation are concentrated in fragile contexts and fragility itself can also lead to other negative outcomes, including conflict.
Contexts facing fragility undermine the ability of individuals to live decent, secure lives and of communities to reduce poverty. As the world becomes more fragile, it also becomes increasingly unequal. Countries facing the most fragility were home to an estimated 2 billion people in 2024, approximately 25% of the world's population and 72% of the world’s extreme poor. By 2030 this number will have risen to 3.2 billion (86% of the world’s extremely poor). Out of 59 contexts with acutely food insecure people in 2024, 43 were experiencing high and extreme fragility.
A significant share of official development assistance (ODA) is spent in contexts with high and extreme fragility: equal to USD 70.1 billion, a 2% increase over 2020 and representing 52% of their country allocable aid. ODA is a particularly vital resource in the 18 contexts of extreme fragility, where it accounted for approximately 66% of the total external development finance allocated to these countries. Remittances made up 32%, while other official flows represented just 1%.
Fragility is a global problem that hits hardest those who are least able to cope with cumulative shocks and crises. Addressing the drivers of fragility can take generations. It requires long-term partnerships that go beyond programming cycles to create lasting stability and prevent conflict.
The OECD Fragility Framework analyses fragility in 177 contexts across the world. The 61 contexts presented in the 2025 States of Fragility Report are those exposed to the most fragility. This includes 18 with extreme fragility representing a high to severe level of fragility across six dimensions in the framework.
The framework measures fragility on a spectrum of intensity and expressed in different ways across economic, environmental, human, political, security and societal dimensions. A sixth dimension – human –was added in 2022 to reflect the importance of investing in people’s well-being and livelihoods.
Source: OECD (2025), States of Fragility 2025, https://doi.org/10.1787/81982370-en.
The OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Recommendation on Humanitarian Development Peace Nexus outlines 11 principles for bringing more coherence and complementarity to peace, development and humanitarian international engagement in crisis-affected contexts. The principles are grouped into three themes:
Note: Pillar I.3 of the OECD DAC Peer Review Analytical Framework sets out basic standards for DAC members to ensure they are fit for fragility and crisis-affected contexts. This includes that engagement should contribute to reducing the risk and impact of crises and conflict, support building resilience at local and national level and strengthen peace and conflict prevention.
1. Co-ordination: Meeting the needs of crisis affected people and contributing to longer-term development and peace requires coherent efforts, informed by joint analysis, and backed up by relevant political engagement. Actors must also be empowered to co-ordinate across and within organisations.
Belgium’s Fragility Resilience Assessment Management Exercise (FRAME) tool has been used for common risk and opportunity analysis with stakeholders in Mali, Burkina Faso and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Canada, Portugal and the United Kingdom use cross-departmental task teams for particular crises, building on different expertise across government (humanitarian, development, political, security).
Spain takes peace and inequalities as an entry point for development co-operation, supporting co-ordination and coherent action across its development and peace efforts.
Switzerland's fit for purpose process has combined Humanitarian Development desks for better co-ordination.
Sweden facilitates the nexus donor group in the Democratic Republic of the Congo through a nexus adviser based in the Swedish Embassy. The donor group covers a range of activities, from information exchange, co-ordinating office functions, and practical processes to map and track resourcing against needs.
2. Programming: Programming is inclusive, joined-up, people-centred, and prioritises prevention. It ensures collective outcomes, is aligned with risks and contributes to strengthening country-level capacities.
Austria makes training on conflict sensitivity available to all staff, including those in partner countries, as well as local partners.
Finland has created a Finnish Fund for local co-operation, managed by embassies, that provides core and project support to local civil society organisations in crisis-prone countries and territories for up to two years.
Japan coherently links its efforts on disaster prevention, preparedness and response, and helps to set policy standards on disaster risk reduction in multilateral fora and through strong bilateral relations with partner country governments.
Iceland makes use of country systems at district level, assisting some of the more marginalised and rural communities in low-income and fragile contexts. Its programming supports district budgets and uses district systems to monitor projects.
Slovenia expanded the scope of its demining efforts, incorporating risk reduction, psychosocial assistance, surplus arms reduction and capacity building into its programmes.
3. Financing: Financing instruments and mechanisms are flexible, predictable and multi-year, and financing strategies are co-ordinated across different policy areas. Approaches to multilateral financing create incentives for the multilateral system to move beyond institutional divides and deliver results together.
France’s Minka Fund provides financial support to medium- to long-term projects that tackle drivers and consequences of crises and conflicts, while responding to the needs of affected populations.
New Zealand has the option to carry over planned disbursements beyond the three-year government budget, thereby avoiding disbursement pressure at the end of a budget window.
The United Kingdom has no fixed humanitarian budget, providing flexibility to respond to needs according to its own and its partners’ analysis.
Ireland channels a high share of bilateral ODA to and through civil society organisations (CSOs) with 21% allocated as core contributions. It also makes highly flexible humanitarian funding available to CSOs (over 50% is un-earmarked or only softly earmarked funding).
Belgium is increasing the share of non-earmarked funding for humanitarian support.
4. The Nexus Recommendation as an approach for managing change within and across organisations: Organisations have used the Nexus Recommendation to manage organisational change to support more coherent action in three main ways:
Grand strategies. These involve re-wiring the institutional setup. For example: the World Bank Group’s Strategy for Fragility, Conflict and Violence.
Bottom-up approaches. These involve incremental reform and cultivating internal coalitions for change. For example, Canada’s Nexus Working Group, and Switzerland’s Nexus Learning Journey.
Targeted measures. These involve generating strategic impetus in critical areas, either within organisations (Nexus taskforces) or across them (inter-agency Nexus Coordinators). Examples include:
How do we know if DAC Members are moving in the right direction?
Development and peace efforts in partner countries are driven by a conflict-sensitive analysis informed by the different dimensions of fragility.
Development partners take an adaptive programming approach and formulate relevant guidance for staff.
Financial engagement, including humanitarian assistance in protracted crises, is based on an overall financing plan and not on compartmentalised sources of funding.
Engagement focuses on crisis and conflict prevention always, development co-operation whenever possible and humanitarian assistance only when it is necessary. When used, humanitarian assistance is provided in line with the humanitarian principles.
DAC Recommendation on the Humanitarian Development Peace Nexus (2019), [OECD/LEGAL/5019].
Principles for good international engagement in fragile states and situations (2007), OECD Development Assistance Committee.
Co‑ordination across the Humanitarian-Development‑Peace Nexus, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Multidimensional Fragility Dashboard, OECD Fragility Framework, OECD [website].
Fragility in an age of crises and What is fragility?, OECD [videos].
DAC Evaluation Resource Centre (DEReC), OECD [website].
More Framework principles are available on Development Co-operation TIPs • Tools Insights Practices.
