Published August 3, 2012 | By Krista Hendry

We at The Fund for Peace have been very excited about the way the Failed States Index (FSI) is being publicly debated in Indonesia. Our main goal in creating the Index is to call attention to issues and challenges many countries are facing. It is not meant as a shaming tool against any government. Rather, it is a tool we hope government and civil society will use to perform more in-depth analyses of the issues we measure based on local knowledge. They can then better map priorities, measure progress on issues, and hopefully identify gaps where they can work in collaboration to strengthen the various social, economic, and political indicators we assess.

Despite its name, we are not calling any country a "failed state." We prefer to think of it as a barometer of the continued pressures on the state, and capacity of the state and the society to cope with and mitigate the pressures they experience. The fact the debate in Indonesia has begun to move away from a focus on the term “failed state” to a discussion of how people in Indonesia locally define the issues is very welcome. For policy making we believe government and civil society within the country should work together to consider the issues and set priorities – and measure progress over time.

An international organization like The Fund for Peace is able to call attention to global issues by creating a global index. These are useful tools, but they are not the end of an assessment, but just the beginning.

Published June 18, 2012 | By J. Messner, N. Haken, K. Hendry, P. Taft, K. Lawrence, T. Anderson, R. Jaeger, N. Manning, F. Umaña, A. Whitehead

The Failed States Index, produced by The Fund for Peace, is a critical tool in highlighting not only the normal pressures that all states experience, but also in identifying when those pressures are pushing a state towards the brink of failure. By highlighting pertinent issues in weak and failing states, The Failed States Index—and the social science framework and software application upon which it is built—makes political risk assessment and early warning of conflict accessible to policy-makers and the public at large.

Published June 18, 2012 | By Krista Hendry

One of the greatest challenges in assessing the potential for violent conflict or state collapse is data collection. Despite ten years of constant work to find or develop new ways to collect or create data, there is still much left to be done. Working with partners in the air and on the ground, we are trying to improve our ability to perform assessments with greater efficiency, accuracy, and at levels of granularity that makes the analysis more useful in the design of responses.

The Failed States Index (FSI) is a very high-level view of the world. It is possible to generate the Index each year for the entire world because we allow ourselves to focus on the nation-state. We recognize, however, that areas within each nation-state can be vastly different. We are also combining data for an entire year, and as we all know, the world changes much more dramatically. Sometimes a single event – one perhaps not foreseen even just the day before – can start a series of events that can lead to sudden violence or collapse.

Published November 10, 2011 | By Krista Hendry and Diana Klein

While the Voluntary Principles on Security & Human Rights have grown over the past ten years to include 7 governments, 18 companies, and 9 NGOs, there has been too little focus on national?level implementation within the countries that have challenges related to security and human rights. At the same time, there has been little guidance, with the exception of a case study on Colombia, given to those in the countries on how they can encourage VPs adoption by host governments and extractive companies operating in the country.

The purpose of this document, which will be public, is to give guidance to those interested in initiating or supporting a national?level process to implement the VPs. The document lays out basic elements for consideration based on existing national?level processes. The Fund for Peace (FfP) and International Alert (IA) have joined in this effort as two of the participant NGOs in the international?level dialogue of the VPs, with funding from the Government of Norway and support from the Government of the Republic of Colombia, two of the governments formally involved in the process. This guidance note has been informed by existing in?country processes ? largely Colombia and Indonesia, as well as experience and insight gathered from participants at a workshop in Bogota in June 2010.

This guidance note should also not be viewed as overly prescriptive. As will be evident throughout this document, a national?level process will invariably be different in each area. Every country will have its own unique set of actors, challenges and opportunities.

Published March 1, 2010 | By Krista Hendry

Extractive companies have come under increasing scrutiny due to their operations in areas with weak or oppressive governments, impoverished communities and overall potential for conflict. Often blamed for creating or exacerbating conditions that could cause violence to erupt or human rights abuses to occur, extractive companies have become more aware of their potential impact on and within communities. To protect their employees, physical assets, ability to operate and international reputations, extractive companies assess not only their own security, but also that of neighboring communities and often the country as a whole.