In the past two decades, a growing consensus has emerged that a differentiated approach to cooperation was needed in fragile contexts. Four simple observations have sparked this evolution. First, classical cooperation approaches do not bring the expected results and often prove to be inefficient. Second – and as one of the consequences – countries in a fragile situation have often lagged behind in reaching of the United Nations Millennium Goals and are most likely to suffer major difficulties in attaining the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Third, these contexts are much more likely to experience repeated cycles of political and criminal violence. Finally, an estimated 1.5 billion people live in such fragile contexts. The definition and understanding of fragility has however evolved over time. First, fragility was conceived as a binary concept, intimately linked to the state actors and systems “failing to provide basic services to poor people because they are unwilling or unable to do so†(OECD, 2006). A state was or was not considered as fragile and lists of fragile states were produced. Today, a much more multi-dimensional understanding of fragility exists where all states can be fragile and only an arbitrary line can be drawn on the fragility continuum to determine which state is or is not in a fragile situation. Fragility is therefore now defined as “the combination of exposure to risk and insufficient coping capacity of the state, system and/or communities to manage, absorb or mitigate those risks†(OECD, 2016). Five dimensions are at the core of this multi- dimensional approach: economy, society, environment, security and politics. Over the years, the concept of fragility has become more and more salient in Belgian development cooperation, mostly through its endorsement of the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States, the adoption of the Strategic Note on Situations of Fragility in 2013 and the strategic decision made in 2014 to focus Belgian aid on least developed countries and fragile ...