Donor Government Agency

Part I summarizes in broad strokes the scope of JRP’s work with Mongolia’s justice sector institutions. Part II summarizes “Lessons Learned” from the perspective of donors,
implementers, and recipients of USAID assistance. The final chapter, Part III, contains recommendations for the justice sector of Mongolia and for future donors. It is based on the experience of the Judicial Reform Program over the past eight years and draws on the recommendations coming out of JRP’s March 2009 closing conference “Next Steps in Justice Reform,” which brought together all of the key justice sector leaders and administrators. As its final contribution to its Mongolian partners, this Report seeks to synthesize the consensus outcomes of the conference which in turn were intended to serve as a road map for future reforms and improvements in the administration of justice.

This paper provides a perspective from recent experience of how donors engage in security sector governance work. It contains an overview of the content and process of donor engagement in SSR and the linkages to broader governance issues. It addresses the need for a coordinated approach within government amongst stakeholder ministries and departments and the challenges involved in making this a reality. The paper discusses the equally important issue of effective coordination in the wider development community and other institutions involved SSR. It draws primarily on UK experience in Africa and Asia and UK government
experience of developing joined up approaches and inter-ministry co-ordination mechanisms. It uses the successful example of the UK Defence Advisory Team (DAT) to offer some insights from this experience that includes work in Sierra Leone, Uganda, Indonesia and Afghanistan. The paper reviews the nature and limitations on the use of conditionality and suggests situations in which it might be helpful.

"A Common Approach for Building International Capacity to Support SJSR" is the title of ISSAT's second High Level Panel (HLP), organised on May 19th, 2011. ISSAT hosted its HLP discussion in Brussels, Belgium with the focus on the increasing need for establishing the right balance of technical, methodological and contextual expertise within SSR interventions.

The basis for the HLP topic was the recognition that the number of SSR mandates within Peace Support Operations (PSO) and crisis management operations has increased over the past years. In parallel, the demand for SSR and rule of law advisors who combine specialist knowledge with a solid understanding of the politics involved in reform processes has increased.

At present, many bilateral and multilateral donors face serious capacity gaps when it comes to having readily-available and deployable personnel with SSR experience and expertise. Security and justice reform requires a multi-disciplinary response: it requires personnel with an understanding of the political nature of SSR and the importance of accountability to a legitimate authority, coupled with those who have a technical understanding of how, for example, a police service, the military, the courts system and the various ministries function.

The panel who addressed these issues were:

• Mr. Richard Wright, Director Conflict Prevention & Security Policy, European External Action Service (EEAS)
• Mr. Cedric de Coning, Advisor to ACCORD and NUPI and Author of the Study on Civilian Capacities within the Non-governmental Civilian Roster Community
• Mr Mika-Markus Leinonen, Director, Civcom Chair, European External Action Service (EEAS) 
• General Juan Estaban (by video), Former Head of the EU SSR Mission in Guinea Bissau

This study analyses the issue of early recovery. In doing so it critically discusses, in a first step, the policy strategies and operational frameworks of selected bilateral donors, regional organizations as well as multilateral institutions to disentangle the main background concepts underlying the policy concepts and to inform the reader of the major challenges involved.The research investigate the following issues: the relations and trade-offs between the strategic objectives of peace-building as well as security and development; the analytical integration of socio-economic development and conflict; the methodological conceptualization of the 'transition' phase; the trade-offs between short and long-term development objectives; and the challenge of sequence and prioritization.

The study highlights policy recommendations and implications in fourteen priority areas: the reintegration of ex-combatants and special groups (IDPs, refugees), infrastructure, employment, agriculture, education, health, fiscal policy and public finance, monetary policy and exchange rate management, the financial sector, external finances (capital flight, debt relief, remittances, ODA), trade, private sector development and entrepreneurship, economic governance (land property rights and access to land, corruption, the management of natural resources, illegal economic activities, regional conflict factors) and horizontal inequality.

This article argues for an integrated, political and pragmatic approach to justice and security development as one of the key objectives of effective international support to peace building and state building in conflict-affected and fragile states. Developments since the 1990s suggest that different actors and communities have started to work on the same issues from different angles and with – perceived– different mandates. As a result, important parts of the debate on how to deal with security system reform (SSR), justice reform and the rule of law seem somewhat stuck in conceptual arguments. This article suggests moving away from such debates and instead to focus on what such justice and security engagements are meant to achieve, for whom, and which general approaches are likely to provide most added value. It argues that results require political focus, long-term processes and need to be in tune with local elite interests – whilst pursuing the aim of gradually helping to improve delivery of justice and security as basic services for all, to appropriate local standards. External and domestic objectives require careful balancing, creative compromises and strong incentives. The article also outlines a number of recurrent challenges to effective programming and suggests some ideas for improvement to achieve better results and more value for money.

This case study report presents research findings on the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) arrangements of a long-running justice sector development programme in Uganda (hereafter JLOS – Justice Law and Order Sector). It is one of five case studies carried out as part of the Saferworld project, 'Evaluating for Security: Developing specific guidance on monitoring and evaluating Security Sector Reform interventions’.1 Together with a wider desk review and supplementary research into the broader M&E systems used by the major SSR donors, the case studies provide an evidence base from which specific guidance on monitoring and evaluating SSR can be developed.

This report brings together the results of a research project on the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of security system reform (SSR) programmes. It focuses particularly on donor-supported SSR programmes, but with reference throughout to local ownership of and capacity for M&E activities. The report seeks to answer four questions about the M&E of SSR:

• Specific challenges of the M&E of SSR: What challenges apply to the M&E of SSR and security and justice institutions and what, if anything, is distinct about this area?
• Content and process: What should we be measuring when monitoring and evaluating SSR and how?
• Available resources: What existing resources can be drawn upon from within the field or from related disciplines to assist in developing specific guidance on M&E of SSR?
• Demand: Who are the most obvious users of tailored guidance on this subject and what do they need?

The report does not in itself constitute a guidance document on the M&E of SSR, but provides material from which tailored guidance could be prepared to meet the needs of interested parties.

This report assesses the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) arrangements for the AusAIDsupported Law and Justice Sector in Papua New Guinea (PNG). It covers both Government of PNG and AusAID mechanisms: examining their content, development and convergence over time. AusAID’s Law and Justice Sector Program (LJSP) has been running since 2004, with an initial design phase one year prior to that. The LJSP presents a unique case study involving the support of only one donor (AusAID) to a sector programme that is led with an increasing level of ownership by the recipient government.

This report assesses the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) arrangements for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) project entitled ‘Support to the Security Sector Reform (SSSR) programme in Albania’. Research for this project was carried out in Tirana in May 2008. It is one of five case studies carried out as part of the Saferworld project, 'Evaluating for Security: Developing specific guidance on monitoring and evaluating Security Sector Reform interventions’.

Together with a wider desk review and supplementary research into the broader M&E systems used by the major SSR donors, the case studies provide an evidence base from which specific guidance on monitoring and evaluating SSR can be developed.

This report analyses the monitoring and evaluation arrangements (M&E) of a community policing project ‘Implementation of Community Policing in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH)'. The field research for this report was carried out in May/June 2008.

This report is one of five case studies carried out as part of the Saferworld project ‘Evaluating for Security: Developing specific guidelines on monitoring and evaluating Security Sector Reform (SSR) interventions'

This report assesses the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) arrangements put in place by the UK Government's Sierra Leone Security Sector Reform Programme, which ran from June 1999 until 31 March 2008. The research for this report was carried out between May and July 2008.

It is one of five case studies carried out as part of the Saferworld project, 'Evaluating for Security: Developing specific guidance on monitoring and evaluating Security Sector Reform interventions'.

This report provides an overview of the United Kingdom Government’s arrangements for monitoring and evaluating (M&E) the support it provides to security sector reform (SSR). It examines the M&E systems that already exist for similar types of work as well as looking at any specific treatment given to SSR, before also identifying outstanding needs, challenges and any trends and opportunities that exist for improving M&E in this area.

Institutional assessment is often considered to be a first step in the reform or development of institutions. It involves an analysis of various components and stakeholders in an institutional setting and provides a means of identifying the current situation, priority areas for intervention and the various constraints/barriers that could undermine reform efforts. Assessments of this nature usually examine both the overall institutional framework (the rules of the game) and the organisations operating within this institutional context (the players).

This report collates information, guidelines and case study material. Not all of the documents included below directly use the term ‘institutional assessment’, but the processes described, variously referred to as reviews, studies and assessments, broadly pertain to the definition of institutional assessment.

The report includes coverage of a number of donor designed frameworks for assessing the policing and justice sector. According to much of the general academic and policy literature on SSAJ programmes, substantial reform of the police force is only possible when reform of the justice system is administered at the same time. However, whilst the underlying principles for the institutional assessment of policing and justice may be similar, the specific frameworks espoused by donors appear to tackle the institutional assessment of policing and justice separately.

Security sector reform (SSR) is an integral part of the international community’s efforts to build peace and enhance security in weak post-war states. It has, however, proven difficult to undertake SSR in such contexts. A number of factors constitute a challenge to create security forces that are able to provide security to the population.

Based on previous research, this report highlights some of the challenges to SSR in weak post-war states. Through an analysis of the SSR process in the Central African Republic, this study shows that informal power structures, a volatile security situation and failure to understand how SSR is influenced by other political processes, negatively impact on the prospect for successful  implementation of reforms. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that weak capacity and lack of political will on behalf of the national government, is a challenge to local ownership and sustainable reforms. Despite a holistic approach to reforms aiming to improve both the capacity of the security forces and to increase democratic control of the security institutions, insufficient international engagement, scarce resources, lack of strategic direction and inadequate donor coordination have limited the prospect for implementation of reforms.

Afghanistan is emerging from decades of strife, and the new Government faces several challenges. Arguably the most daunting of these is to make Afghanistan secure, and establish the rule of law. Approximately $9 billion of foreign assistance has been spent on the security sector from 2003 to 2007, underscoring the important role the security sector plays in the wider reconstruction agenda. From 2007–10 a major scale-up to over $14 billion is planned, to be funded largely from external assistance. This resource expansion should be accompanied by heightened scrutiny of how foreign assistance is spent and whether it is delivering the desired outcomes of peace and a stronger, more accountable Afghan state. One important question to ask is whether the current financing model employed is the correct one, and how it affects the incentives around the reform process.

This paper takes an aid effectiveness approach to judge whether the financing model is appropriate for Afghanistan and it finds that the current financing model falls short of good aid effectiveness practice.

The overall purpose of the High Level Panel (October 2nd-3rd 2012) was to take stock of the challenges when implementing security and justice reforms at a national level; to identify lessons that could be applied to other SSR processes in the Eastern African region; and to look at what role regional and international actors could optimally have in SSR initiatives. The High Level Panel brought together over 200 SSR policy makers and practitioners to unpack the key issues faced by both those implementing and leading SSR. Those attending the event were experts responsible for leading and implementing processes in Burundi, Somalia and South Sudan, as well as key donors, regional and multilateral organisations and representatives from the African Security Sector Network and other civil society organisations. 

This report reflects the informal conclusions drawn from the selected country-case studies as well as thematic debates at the High-Level Panel. 

Rule of law–based criminal justice responses to terrorism are most effectively ensured when they are practiced within a criminal justice system capable of handling ordinary criminal offenses while protecting the rights of the accused and when all are equally accountable under the law. Building the capacity of weak criminal justice systems to safeguard mutual rights and responsibilities of governments and their citizens is essential for the alleviation of a number of conditions conducive to violent extremism and the spread of terrorism. A new wave of multilateral counterterrorism initiatives has the opportunity to recalibrate how criminal justice and rule of law–oriented counterterrorism capacity-building assistance is delivered to developing states with weak institutions.

This policy brief argues that aligning counterterrorism capacity-building agendas within a framework informed by the Paris Principles and the development cooperation experience could greatly enhance the effectiveness and sustainability of criminal justice and rule of law capacity-building assistance in general and in preventing terrorism specifically.

On 6-7 November 2012, the Politics and Governance Programme at the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) hosted a two-day Expert Meeting on the Politics of Practice: Security and Justice Programming in Fragile and Conflict-affected States (FCAS).

The meeting drew together approximately 70 researchers, policymakers and practitioners from Europe, North America, Asia and the Pacific and Africa to discuss challenges and lessons learnt in translating improved policy thinking into practice. 

This report draws out key themes and challenges in justice and security programming that featured in discussions. It also summarises emerging recommendations and lessons learnt, and signals areas where changes are important in order to improve results. Therefore, the objective of the report, as it was of the meeting, is to begin to set out avenues for operational and organisational changes and action-oriented research, and for revisiting some of the policy content in ways that can help relevant communities of practice grapple with the challenges of translating policy into practice.

Honduras’ security and justice sector suffers from severe deficiencies. It remains largely inefficient and unable to safeguard security and the rule of law for its citizens. Criminal investigative units are plagued with serious problems of incompetence, corruption and progressive penetration by organised crime. The judiciary lacks independence and is subject to systematic political interference. Inter-institutional coordination is poor and flawed by a climate of mutual mistrust and rivalry over competencies.

This report describes and analyses the EU’s contribution to strengthening security and the rule of law in Honduras through a major security sector reform (SSR) programme earmarked with a budget of €44 million. The report underlines the crucial need for increased local ownership as a sine qua non condition if the EU’s endeavours are to trigger sustainable institutional change and thus further human security in Honduras. The report also examines prospects for the creation of an international commission against impunity, following the example of the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG).

The report, co-drafted by the Belgrade Centre for Security Policy (formerly known as the Centre for Civil-Military Relations) and the Belgrade Fund for Political Excellence with the support of DCAF, presents the findings of the needs assessment on gender and SSR in Serbia.

It:
• Generates a detailed baseline for the current state of gender mainstreaming in security sector institutions at the central, provincial and municipal level;
• Identifies local needs, gaps and shortcomings of current SSR processes, and prioritizes needs which should be addressed by national authorities and civil society, with the support of the international donor community, including DCAF’s gender and SSR project.

The needs assessment is built on desk research, interviews, and a series of local stakeholder consultations conducted in Novi Sad, Kragujevac, Novi Pazar, Bujanovac and Belgrade in the course of March and April 2010. It forms the building block of DCAFs dedicated and long term gender and SSR project in Serbia.

On 2-3 October 2012, DCAF-ISSAT organised a High Level Panel (HLP) on Challenges and Opportunities for Security Sector Reform (SSR) in East Africa , in partnership with the United Nations Office in Nairobi (UNON), the Governments of Burundi, Kenya, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Somalia and South Sudan, the African Development Bank (AfDB), the African Union (AU), East African Community (EAC), Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the African Security Sector Network (ASSN). It was attended by over two hundred SSR policy makers and practitioners.

This report seeks to take those discussions further, including more of the points raised by participants during the HLP, and adding in lessons from experience gathered from individual missions and related trainings. Three case studies featured in the HLP (Burundi, Somalia and South Sudan) and as such provide many of the examples, although the report also draws from examples beyond East Africa. An introductory section on SSR in each of these countries is provided in section one and full case studies are included in the annex.

This report, which keeps to the same thematic areas as those covered in the HLP, offers information on contemporary thinking in security and justice reform, and provides some recommendations and examples of good practice to those interested in or engaged in SSR.

Some videos interviews of the participants at the event are listed in the Related Resources column on the right of this webpage. A full list of available videos from this event are available under the documents tab on the HLP's Events page. Podcasts of all the sessions are available there also.

The report, produced by Isabel Vogel and commissioned by the DFID evaluation division,considers the current uses and definitions of Theory of Change (ToC). A methodology which maps the assumptions which inform planned interventions within all stages of an initiative, ToC is increasingly regarded as an essential tool in designing and appreciating the complex network of factors which influence project outcomes.The review considers the practical aspects of ToC implementation and to develop a more consistent approach which is gaining in reputation and use within the international development community.

Vogel acknowledges that lack of consensus exists around the specific definition of ToC. The review highlights the necessity for flexibility in developing a successful ToC. Through consideration of different approaches, outlining examples of ToC in practice within the appendix, Vogel identifies and draws together a short list of the core elements, generally agreed upon as essential requirements for any discussion centred on theory of change. The review further examines the most effective means of establishing a logical pathway to desired outcomes using the ToC model. Vogel highlights the need to establish ToC as an ongoing process developed alongside all phases of a programme from inception to impact evaluation and emphasises that assumptions should be made explicit within the organising framework of a project.

ToC, as the review makes clear, has the potential to provide an invaluable framework for discussion and critical thinking surrounding project implementation and evaluation. It allows for subjective analysis to be discussed and represented, through diagrams and visuals, which can in turn support more dynamic exchange between policy actors, grantees and donors.

For full report, http://www.dfid.gov.uk/r4d/pdf/outputs/mis_spc/DFID_ToC_Review_VogelV7.pdf

This paper outlines the process of producing Sierra Leone’s 2002 defence white paper. Unique to this process was the document’s explicit aim of explaining to the general public both the progress and the shortcomings of security sector reform (SSR) in Sierra Leone’s defence system. The white paper was produced on the assumption that without making this information publicly available, opportunities to engage ordinary people in future reform initiatives would be limited. 

The paper also describes some of the challenges faced in the white paper’s production, including those from military counterparts in the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF) and from international military and civilian advisers.

After a complex process of consultation and debate, the defence white paper is a strong statement of where Sierra Leone’s defence sector stands today and the direction it should take in the future. It is obvious that all this chapter’s recommendations will not necessarily be implemented in practice. It is also clear that while Sierra Leone has come a long way in building up a strong and democratically accountable defence system, there are still many challenges ahead.

This document is a review of security and justice sector reform (SJSR) programmes and lessons learned from 2001 to 2005 that were part of DFID's Africa Conflict Prevent Pool (ACPP). The programmes were reviewed based on the criteria of coherence, effectiveness, and impact.

This document provides Department of State, DoD, and USAID practitioners with guidelines for coordinating, planning, and implementing SSR programs with foreign partner nations. The objective of this paper is to provide guidance on how best to design, develop, and deliver foreign assistance such that it promotes effective, legitimate, transparent, and accountable security sector development in partner states.

This paper is the result of a collaborative effort of researchers and former practitioners with experience in the DRC currently working for Clingendael – the Netherlands Institute for International Relations based in The Hague, the Conflict, Security and Development Group at King’s College London in the United Kingdom, the Institut français des relations internationales based in Paris, France, and the Institute for Security Studies, South Africa. Hans Hoebeke, Senior Researcher at Egmont, The Royal Institute for International Relations, Belgium was extensively consulted during the preparation of this paper.

The authors of this paper have drawn upon their professional experience in the DRC and/or ongoing analysis of developments there. This has included interviews, conducted both in country and at donor headquarter level, of political representatives and working-level practitioners of donor country and multilateral institutions, independent experts, Congolese civil servants across the justice, police and defence sectors as well as non-governmental organisation and civil society representatives.

The Security Sector Governance (SSG) Programme of the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) conducted baseline studies of the security sector in six Southern African countries, namely Botswana, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Lesotho, Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe, as well as the Southern African Development Community’s Organ on Politics, Defence and Security (SADC Organ). The results of this research are reflected in this monograph.

After many years of political instability and three failed attempts of DDR, there is a renewed effort in Guinea-Bissau to get DDR and SSR right. With a national strategy and action plan on SSR in place, Guinea-Bissau has attracted a lot of attention from the international community. Many donors, the European Union (EU) among others, are sending experts to assist in the SSR process in Guinea-Bissau. While there are favourable circumstances for SSR in Guinea-Bissau such as a willingness and
commitment displayed by the national authorities, a number of difficulties and challenges were highlighted during the briefing. The Army, which is by far the most powerful actor in Guinea-Bissau, has to be brought into the reform process. In addition, the large numbers of donors and experts have to be absorbed, organized and most off all coordinated.

As a collection of separate papers, this volume is not aimed at being a coherent, polished version of the security transformation of Sierra Leone, but at providing an insight into the thoughts of those involved. In particular we have sought to showcase papers providing a ‘warts-and-all’ picture of the reform process that not everyone would agree with, but all have to acknowledge as being relevant. The original idea of these papers was to provide inputs into a broader piece of research reconstructing the narrative of the UK intervention, so many of them were not written with publication in mind. Rather, the authors sought to provide their own views of the process from their particular vantage point and to highlight different perceptions of the same processes.

The earthquake that hit Haiti was the deadliest natural disaster ever in the Western Hemisphere. It caused enormous human suffering and physical destruction, the extent and impact of which were multiplied by the country’s longstanding structural problems, such as pervasive poverty, urban overcrowding, unplanned urbanisation and environmental degradation. A long history of corrupt and inefficient governments, centralised political power, extremely inequitable income distribution and by no means always benign foreign interventions has been immensely compounded by the natural disaster. The consequences threaten to undermine the slight progress toward stability and development that had been made since President René Préval took office in 2006.

This issue of the CIGI Security Sector Reform Monitor: Haiti analyses the programming shift undertaken by MINUSTAH and some donors from a traditional DDR to
a violence reduction approach, underlining the problems of coordination and knowledge sharing that emerged.

The meaningful participation of beneficiaries in aid programmes directed to human rights reform is crucial to their success. Their views on ways to improve them deserve serious attention. In interviews with beneficiaries in four countries we were told that aid for reform has had an impact. In the justice sector (the focus of our study) foreign
aid has facilitated constitutional development and legislative reforms and helped expand civil society and transform the justice system. Aid programmes have helped introduce human rights concepts into public consciousness and public institutions in societies where such notions were once seen as subversive.
We were also told that human rights assistance can be wasteful and even do harm. Badly conceived and implemented programmes have sheltered repressive regimes from scrutiny, wasted vital resources and distorted domestic institutions. Donors sometimes promote inappropriate models and put their foreign policy interests before human rights. They can be unreliable partners, subject to quick fixes and too much attention on “exit strategies”. Success depends on many factors, not least paying more attention to local perspectives. This report sets out some of the main issues. It offers signposts that we hope will be useful to both donors and beneficiaries looking for ways
to strengthen the impact of human rights assistance.

In October 2010, ITAD was commissioned by the DFID Politics and the State team to conduct research and propose a way forward for Governance programmes in conducting value for money assessments as part of a consultancy on measuring the impact and value for money of DFID Governance programmes. The specific objective stated for our work on value for money (VFM) in the Terms of Reference was:

“To set out how value for money can best be measured in governance and conflict programming, and whether the suggested indicators have a role in this or not”.

This Report presents background on VFM from documentary research (section 2); explains the analytical framework that captures key concepts in VFM, and sets out options for improving VFM (section 3). It outlines one specific option, a “3 Es ratings and weightings approach to VFM” as presented to Governance and Conflict Advisers at a DFID Research Day on 25 November 2010, and includes their response plus some initial reactions from Finance and Corporate Performance Division (FCPD), particularly with regard to Business Case compatibility (section 4). Finally, the Report proposes ways in which initial findings can be refined and further developed to support Governance programming and build staff competence and confidence in conducting VFM assessments (section 5).