In December, EU-CORD hosted a roundtable discussion in a collaboration with Caritas Europa, Act Alliance EU, and Islamic Relief. The event brought together representatives from the EU and its Member States, donors, policymakers and faith-based organisations (FBOs) to discuss the topic: maintaining engagement in fragile contexts through partnership with local faith-based organisations. The discussions and presentations aimed to showcase the best practices of FBOs implementing the Humanitarian-Development-Peace (HDP) Nexus in various politically estranged contexts, address challenges faced by both the EU and FBOs in fragile settings and facilitate dialogue between local actors, FBOs and the EU.
The event, moderated by EU-CORD and ZOA Chair Chris Lukkien, opened with reflections from Ruth Faber, CEO of EU-CORD, who shared insights on the challenges of working in fragile states and the pivotal role of civil society in these contexts. The reflections can be read as follows:
Over the past few years, there has been a waning political will for a comprehensive approach to fragility, often overshadowed by the launch of new projects like the Global Gateway. However, the mission letters for INTPA and ECHO Commissioners Jozef Síkela and Hadja Lahbib speak to a new impetus for a Commission-wide integrated approach to fragility and the need for inspired leadership to define and move this policy approach forward.
Fragile states present some of the most challenging contexts for development, peacebuilding, and governance. These are places where the social contract between the state and its citizens has been profoundly eroded—where institutions are weak; public trust is scarce, and the threats of conflict, climate change, and economic instability compound daily hardships. Examples include South Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Haiti, and the Central African Republic.
Over the past year, language has shifted from ‘fragile states’ to ‘politically estranged contexts.’ While there are overlaps, these terms describe different phenomena. Fragile states are defined by weak governance, poor institutional capacity, and a lack of essential services. Afghanistan and Haiti exemplify this, where governance structures have collapsed, and institutions remain fragile.
On the other hand, politically estranged contexts are characterised by diplomatic or political isolation, either internally, such as contested governments or factional divides, or externally, through sanctions or international isolation. Myanmar after the military coup and North Korea are key examples of such estrangement. Some contexts, like Syria and Venezuela, display both fragility and political estrangement—weak governance, humanitarian crises, and strained or non-existent international relations.
Operating in fragile states is an exercise in balancing urgency with sustainability. Security and access are perennial challenges. Conflict, political instability, and corruption endanger lives and hinder the delivery of essential services. Funding for fragile contexts is often unpredictable, with short-term cycles exacerbating the difficulty of sustaining long-term programmes.
Engaging with local communities, national governments, and international actors requires a nuanced understanding of power dynamics and cultural sensitivities, as missteps can undermine trust and effectiveness. Moreover, fragile states often need more institutional frameworks for accountability and scalability. In some cases, rising authoritarianism and shrinking civic space further complicate efforts to promote democratic governance and human rights.
The concept of political estrangement, as articulated by Chatham House, also points to the broken trust and relationships between states and their regions or communities.
Faith-based organisations, as some of the oldest parts of organised civil society, are deeply woven into the social fabric, often with long-standing ties to individual communities and regions.
However, we are at an increasingly polarised juncture where the role of faith and religion is sometimes misused to marginalise and exclude. Understanding how religious dynamics intersect with socio-economic and political factors is essential. Religious literacy is not just a diplomatic requirement but also a programmatic necessity to ensure inclusive and effective interventions.
Despite these challenges, civil society is working to improve the lives of people and communities in fragile contexts. They are close to affected communities, understanding their needs and priorities in ways that allow them to deliver contextually relevant solutions. They build bridges between communities and governments, fostering dialogue and trust where needed. Civil society actors’ creativity and adaptability have often led to breakthrough approaches in health, education, and livelihoods, even under the most challenging circumstances.
However, these contributions will only reach their full potential if a political and financial environment is enabled to support them. We must articulate the cost of inaction. Failing to address fragility comes with enormous human and financial costs—the price of conflict, displacement, and humanitarian crises far outweighs the investments needed to build peace and stability.
From a European Union perspective, institutions like DG INTPA, DG ECHO, and the European External Action Service are critical players in supporting fragile states. Their unique mandates and resources enable the EU to adopt a comprehensive and strategic approach to fragility. The Directorate-General for International Partnerships emphasises long-term development strategies that tackle root causes of fragility, such as poverty, inequality, and governance deficits. Its focus on sustainable development goals aligns closely with the work of civil society. DG ECHO ensures immediate needs are met while laying the groundwork for recovery and resilience-building. Its partnerships with civil society organisations enable rapid and effective responses in the world’s most challenging contexts.
Meanwhile, the EEAS complements these efforts with its focus on conflict prevention, peacebuilding, and diplomatic engagement, coordinating with member states and global partners to enhance collective impact.
As much as we call for a coherent approach across the EU institutions, we recognise that civil society needs to do the same.
