Home
Who We are
- The g7+ is an intergovernmental organization made up of conflict-affected countries united by a vision of peace, stability, and development in their countries and everywhere in the world.
  
  Discover More
What we do
- The g7+ provides a platform to member countries to collectively advocate for better approaches of supporting peacebuilding and statebuilding efforts in countries affected by conflict and fragility.
  
  Discover More
Resources
Gallery
- - Photos
  - Videos
Be Involved
- The g7+ develop a friendly relations and mutually beneficial dialogues, cooperation and works in partnership with a range of global actors to reform international engagement in member countries and redefine the narrative on state fragility.
  
  Discover More

Our Story

Home
Our Story

We have in the g7+ a new voice and a new commitment to work collectively, as a group, and individually, as empowered leaders and countries to build peaceful and stable futures for our people.

H.E. President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Republic of Liberia

2006 – 2018

our story

The problem with aid effectiveness and achieving Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)

The g7+ was formed in response to a gap identified by fragile and conflict-affected states about the ways in which they could achieve Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)– global goals established by the UN which aimed to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger.

Despite many countries having success in achieving the MDGs, Fragile and Conflict Affected States were still left behind in meeting the Goals. The MDGs focussed on priorities which were not aligned with the real situation of many countries affected by conflict; yet these countries were nevertheless measured against standards set by the MDGs and, thus, were so often shown to be failing. There was no strong representation from countries in a fragile situation during the negotiation of the MDGs framework to ensure the priorities were not using a one-size fits all approach.

They said, “Ok, the children are not being educated. The children are stunted. The infant mortality is high, etc.” We said, “How can the children be educated if we have instability? There is no security, so which parent is going to allow the children to go to school? Which farmer is going to grow vegetables? –

Emilia Pires, former Minister of Finance, Timor-Leste

In the MDG framework, conflict-affected countries were not being recognised or rewarded for trying to meet the prerequisite goals such as ensuring peace and security and thus appeared to be performing poorly. And yet, within their own countries, they were making genuine progress in achieving those indicators.

Countries like Sierra Leone and Liberia were reforming their security sectors to help build security in their newly post-conflict countries. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, stability was the priority, especially in the East, where huge numbers of refugees had to be accommodated, including migrating cattle herders from neighbouring countries due to the effects of climate change. In Togo, the government was working to rebuild democratic foundations, which had deteriorated and led to donors cutting aid between 1994 and 2005, severely limiting development prospects .

These and other achievements might not have shown up as indicators of success as measured by the MDGs or other international measurements, but these achievements represented important steps away from conflict and fragility in our member countries.

They were also often not recognized in the donors’ reports. However, for our member states these achievements were the necessary building blocks to get to a position where the MDGs could begin to be attainable.

“We cannot achieve global development goals unless we first achieve peace in fragile countries.” –

Xanana Gusmão, Former Prime Minister, Timor-Leste

Aid effectiveness

In terms of the effectiveness of foreign aid, our experience shows that aid often gets tied up in foreign controlled programs, also, historically donors have not demonstrated enough care to ensure that where they channel aid actually aligns with the recipient country’s priorities and makes use of existing local systems and processes.

The discussion on aid effectiveness started to receive global attention at the first High Level Forum that took place in Rome in February 2003. In that Forum, principles for aid effectiveness were set out and agreed upon in the Rome Declaration on Harmonisation.

The Rome Declaration highlighted several critical aspects: firstly, that development assistance should be based on the priorities of recipient countries. Secondly, donors should intensify their efforts to work through delegated cooperation at the country level and increase the flexibility of country-based staff to manage country programmes and projects more effectively and efficiently. Lastly, good practice is encouraged and monitored, and backed by analytic work to help strengthen the capacity in the recipient countries to take leadership in determining their development path. The Rome forum then led to the Second High Level Forum on Joint Progress toward Enhanced Aid Effectiveness, which took place in Paris in 2005. The outcome was the “Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness”

in which, for the first time, donors and recipient countries agreed to hold each other accountable for their results. It was recognised that aid could – and should – be producing better impacts.

The Paris Declaration was endorsed with the desire to base development efforts on first-hand experience of what works and what does not work with aid. The declaration set out five fundamental principles for making aid more effective: Ownership, Alignment, Harmonisation, Results and Mutual Accountability.

This recognition of aid challenges in fragile states produced the ten OECD Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States which was formally endorsed at the Development Assistance Committee’s High Level Forum in 2007. These principles were taken further by organising ‘Round Table 7’ on Conflict and Fragility, which was co-chaired by France and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in Kinshasa in June 2008.

The ‘Round Table 7’ discussion played a critical role in formulating the importance of peacebuilding and statebuilding and the need for government leadership and ownership over priorities and policy direction as the first step for sustainable development. This was highlighted in the Kinshasa Statement. Importantly, the statement called for the need for international dialogue between countries in fragile situations and development partners on peacebuilding and statebuilding.

“Nothing about us without us.” –
H.E. Kosti Manibe, Former Minister of Finance from South Sudan

Watershed moment

The Kinshasa statement was then presented at the Third High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness which took place in Accra, Ghana, in September 2008. This forum was seen as a watershed moment. For the first time, fragile countries had the opportunity to speak at the same level, and in the same forum as the decision makers of donor countries and organisations. This enabled more frank conversations about the problems with aid among countries affected by conflict and fragility, and called for them to have an equal voice. Various multilateral donors then also spoke about their efforts to simplify procurement processes and streamline their procedures – which was music to the ears of recipient countries.

The Forum concluded with issuing the Accra Agenda for Action (AAA), which called for the establishment of an International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding and asked for fragile countries to voluntarily monitor the implementation of the principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States and Situations. Seven countries (Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Sierra Leone and Timor-Leste) volunteered to do the monitoring. Subsequently, these 7 countries became the founding members of the g7+.

With an agenda clearly set, fragile states and their development partners decided to meet again in Paris in December 2008 to discuss the nature of this new dialogue. Just before the meeting started, the French Foreign Ministry, who hosted the meeting, suggested that countries in fragile situations and development partners meet separately in order to have a chance to discuss shared concerns before coming together in the meeting. Fourteen recipient countries were present at this closed-door meeting.

Initially, each Minister of the fourteen recipient countries spoke about the positive progress that had been made with development in their country thanks to the support of donors. When it was the Minister of Finance of Timor-Leste, H.E. Emilia Pires’s turn to speak, she asked

“If everything was going so well, why are our countries still fragile?”

She went on to outline some of the problems with aid: fragmentation (when aid comes in too many small pieces from too many donors, making it difficult for partner countries to effectively manage), weak alignment to government plans, and the lack of national capacity and the abundance of natural resource wealth, which countries were not able to capitalise on. When Minister Emilia Pires finished, other Ministers started to ask if they could speak again. This proved to be a pivotal moment to break the ice and open a space for a more frank discussion about the similar challenges countries face and their experiences with conflict and fragility.

Establishing the Group of Seven Plus (g7+)

The recipient countries that had met together for the negotiation of the aid effectiveness felt that it was a hugely valuable exercise and agreed to continue to meet as a small group on the side-lines of other big multilateral events.

Inspired by the name of big G7 (The Group of 7) which was vacant after Russia joined the other seven governments the group and it became G8. Therefore, the G7 was available! They chose the number 7 as that was the same number of countries which had volunteered to monitor the principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States and Situations. However, since these countries were small and fragile, they opted for the small (g) and it became “little g7”.

The Paris meeting in December 2008 set out a plan for organising the first International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding (IDPS)

a meeting that was initially planned to take place in Central African Republic. However, due to lack of flight connectivity it was not possible to host the meeting in the Central African Republic.

In mid 2009, Timor-Leste stepped in with an offer to host the meeting in April 2010. Despite having just experienced a major political crisis during the period of 2006-2008, the government recognised the importance of this international meeting and was determined to create the conditions to enable it to take place. Over a few months, the government of Timor-Leste turned the old market place in the capital, Dili, into the Dili Convention Centre (CCD) to host the event and even chartered a plane from Singapore to get all delegates to Dili on time.

Prior to the IDPS meeting on 10 April, the little g7 held a closed-door meeting over two days and it was at this meeting that the group decided to add “+” to the name of the group, in recognition of potential future members who would want to join later. The membership of g7+ is quite unique as it is based on the spirit of voluntarism, solidarity and cooperation from the beginning.

The informal group g7+ had been chaired by H.E. Olivier Kamitatu, Minister of Planning of the Democratic Republic of Congo, due to his role as the co-chair of the Roundtable 7 and the International Dialogue. During this meeting of the g7+, Minister Kamitatu handed over the role of Chair of g7+ to the Minister of Finance of Timor-Leste, H.E. Emilia Pires, with the endorsement of the membership. It was agreed by all delegates that the Secretariat for the g7+ should be established in Dili, Timor-Leste.

The result of the first g7+ meeting produced the “g7+ Statement” which formally stated the intention of the ten founding members to continue meeting to share experiences, learn from each other and promote a stronger voice for countries in fragile situations. It highlighted four priority areas for these countries to focus on, and which development partners should support and align with: Governance, Economic Development, Human and Social Development, and Security.

To this end, on 10 April 2010 in Dili, Timor-Leste, the g7+ is formally established and the inaugural meeting of the g7+ was held. The group’s vision for peacebuilding and statebuilding was recognized and set out in the Dili Declaration(April 2010) and the g7+ statement became an annex to the Declaration agreed by the IDPS in April 2010.

Today, the g7+ is building a strong, influential and respected platform, working in concert with international development partners, the private sector, civil society, the media and people across borders to reform the way in which international engagement takes place in member countries. The g7+ also provides a forum for sharing lessons and experiences amongst fragile states to support each other in our self-led transitions from fragility to resilience.

“The goal of the g7+ is to help stop conflict, achieve peacebuilding and statebuilding and eradicate poverty through innovative development strategies, which are harmonized to the country context, aligned to the national agenda and led by the state and its people.” -

Dili Declaration, April 2010

Attachments

g7+ Charter French

Lome Communique in Three languages

The Haiti Declaration English

Lisbon Communique 2019 ENGLISH

Lisbon Communique 2019 FRENCH

Kabul Communique 2016 ENGLISH

Kabul Communique 2016 French

g7+ Charter French

Lome Communique in Three languages

The Haiti Declaration English

Lisbon Communique 2019 ENGLISH

Lisbon Communique 2019 FRENCH

Kabul Communique 2016 ENGLISH

Kabul Communique 2016 French

File	File size
Fragility Spectrum	768KB
A New Deal for engagement in Fragile States	103.59 KB
New Deal Monitoring Report	1.06 MB
New Deal Innovations - Aid instruments for peace and state-building - Overview	1.37 MB
New Deal Innovations - Aid instruments for peace and state-building - Case Study 1	1.24 MB
New Deal Innovations - Aid instruments for peace and state-building - Case Study 2	1.24 MB
New Deal Innovations - Aid instruments for peace and state-building - Case Study 3	1.25 MB
New Deal Innovations - Aid instruments for peace and state-building - Case Study 4	1.24 MB
New Deal Innovations - Aid instruments for peace and state-building - Case Study 5	1.23 MB
New Deal Innovations - Aid instruments for peace and state-building - Case Study 6	1.24 MB
New Deal Innovations - Aid instruments for peace and state-building - Complete	252.17 KB

Our Mission

Our collective mission is to support our members to achieve transitions towards resilience and next stages of development, by engaging with actors at both the national and international level.

Drawing on shared experiences, we come together to form one united voice to advocate for country-led and country-owned peacebuilding and statebuilding processes to address conflict and fragility. In doing so, we envisage the development of capable, accountable and resilient states that respond to the expectations and needs of their populations.

Our priorities are articulated by the five Peacebuilding and Statebuilding Goals (PSGs), which were outlined in the 2010 Dili Declaration of the International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding. The Goals are:

Legitimate politics

Foster inclusive political settlements and conflict resolution.

Security

Establish and strengthen people’s security.

Justice

Address injustices and increase people’s access to justice.

Economic Foundations

Generate employment and improve livelihoods.

Revenues & Services

Manage revenue and build capacity for accountable and fair service delivery.

Our Approach

‘Nothing about us without us’: If countries affected by conflict and fragility are being discussed internationally, people from these countries should be present and consulted.
Prioritize peacebuilding and statebuilding goals: Having learned from past experience, the g7+ believes that social and economic development will not be sustainable unless peacebuilding and statebuilding are prioritized in every development intervention, as these determine state-society relations. Peacebuilding and statebuilding should be seen as prerequisites for development, and should take into account the unique context facing each country.
Do no harm: All actions by government actors, civil society, private sector actors and development partners should aim to advance peacebuilding and statebuilding. At a minimum they should ‘do no harm’, and every effort should be taken to avoid possible wider negative consequences of activities in target countries.
Country-led, country-owned: Development is done by the people and not to the people. This means that the countries and their people and governments should own the development agenda. Development plans and programmes in countries affected by conflict are all too often implemented with little or no ownership by local actors, and in a way that does not align to country priorities or development plans. The g7+ maintains that development efforts are at their most effective when they genuinely align to local plans, are adapted to the local context and are led by local actors.

By prioritising these goals with the support of the international community, we aim to bid goodbye to conflict, and welcome development.

The g7+ is a step towards global inclusion and extends the hand of friendship, solidarity, understanding, tolerance and dialogue in the pursuit of peace and sustainable development.

Discover More

Our Journey

The journey of the g7+: 15 Years of Unity and Resilience

15 years of the g7+ evolution in a timeline

Strength in Fragility: We are writing our own History

About g7+