A Framework and Guide for Improving Security. Version 2.0 APRIL 2015

Transcription

1 A Framework and Guide for Improving Security Version 2.0 APRIL 2015

2

3 Table of Contents Introduction and Overview 9 Framework Framework Components, Sub-components and Secondary Categories 14 How Should We Think About Security? 15 Guide Using the Framework 20 Stakeholder Mapping and Analysis 24 Windows of Opportunity: Educate, Caucus, Dialogue, Assess, Plan, Monitor 27 Next Steps 36 Framework Tools Illustrative Framework Analysis Worksheet 39 Sample Scoring Table 41 Informed Reform Resources 43 Summary Scoring Table 45 Framework Analysis Worksheets 48 Glossary 76 Endnotes 77 Annexes Annex A: Tool Reviews 79 Annex B: Foundational Documents and Further Reading 83

4

5 Acknowledgements The development of the Security Governance Accountability and Performance (S-GAP) Framework and Guide would not have been possible without the support of experts and practitioners around the world. Partners for Democratic Change would like to thank the members of the Partners Global network who contributed to the development of the Framework including Socios-Mexico Centro de Colaboración Cívica (Mexico), Partners Foundation for Local Development FPDL (Romania), Partners West Africa (Senegal) and Partners Yemen. Partners is indebted to the network of government, civil society, and uniformed security leaders in the countries of the Mano River region Cote d Ivoire, Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone who shared their knowledge and expertise and provided significant contributions to the development of the S-GAP Framework. Partners is also grateful for the intellectual support of Greg Gisvold, Peggy Ochandarena, Michael Bittrick and Birame Diop. Additionally, the authors appreciate the feedback from our external reviewers including David Alpher, Nicole Ball, Ambassador William Bellamy, Luigi de Martinos, Daniel De Torres, Steve Hege, Michael E. Hess, Robert Perito, Megan Price, Lisa Schirch and Julie Werbel. Further thanks are due to S-GAP Fellows Sarah Smith, Georgetown University and Sharon Kniss, University of Notre Dame. The development of the Framework would not have been possible without the financial support of John DeBlasio of the Global Peace and Development Charitable Trust and the National Endowment for Democracy. Copyright SGAP Framework and Guide by Partners for Democratic Change is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. The use, adaptation, and copy of this Guide and Framework are encouraged. We do, however, ask that you acknowledge and cite all materials used. Cite as: Crawford, Teresa and O Donnell, Hugh. Security Governance Accountability and Performance Toolkit: Guide and Framework. Washington, DC.: Partners Global, 2015.

6 We are pleased to share with you the Security Governance Accountability and Performance (S-GAP) Framework and Guide, developed to support reformers undertaking improvements to their security sectors. These tools are the result of a two year consultative process that relied heavily on our colleagues in the Partners Global network and the champions of change in government, the security sector and civil society in Liberia, Mexico, Sierra Leone and Yemen. All of whom are dedicated to improving the safety and security of citizens in their countries. Teresa Crawford Director Partners for Democratic Change Hugh O Donnell Manager Partners for Democratic Change Partners believes strongly in the power of collaborative processes to improve the effectiveness and sustainability of public sector reform efforts. Security sector reform, one of the biggest challenges in the 21st century, cannot be tackled by governments and their international partners alone. Too often, reform efforts have focused almost exclusively on the provision of equipment and training of security forces with little emphasis on the broader cultural, organizational and behavioral changes required to create a professional, high performing and effective security sector. It is the latter that pays greater dividends for citizens and has the greatest impact on overall security. We view the S-GAP Framework as an opportunity to engage in productive and meaningful discussions about security with the aim of creating new systems of governance and accountability as well as improved performance. This document is the second iteration of the Framework and Guide. We look forward to feedback and suggestions for improvement as we continue to work with our colleagues and partners around the world to apply the Framework through inclusive and collaborative planning processes. Teresa Crawford Hugh O Donnell

7 Ambassador (ret) William M. Bellamy Board Member Partners for Democratic Change Warburg Professor of International Relations, Simmons College Across much of the developing world, rapid economic growth over the past decade has raised hopes for growing prosperity and social progress. Unfortunately, new forms of insecurity and violence have emerged at the same time to threaten these gains. So fast, in fact, are security challenges evolving and spreading in some areas that governments are virtually in retreat. Some are losing territory and the control of populations to increasingly sophisticated and virulent non-state actors from Boko Haram in West Africa to the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. It is in this context that I am pleased to commend to experts, practitioners and policy makers this new assessment framework for improving security developed by Partners Global. Whether one refers to security sector reform or security sector transformation or security sector governance, the overall objective is the same: enabling states both to defend their sovereignty and, equally important, to protect increasingly vulnerable civilian populations. The assessment framework offers a new, comprehensive approach to improving security sector practices. It strongly underscores the need for both whole-of-government and whole-of-society engagement to improve security. Since few poor or fragile states will be able to apply the Framework in its totality, the Framework is also flexible. It can be administered selectively, so that societies can at least advance in some areas if not immediately in others. Finally, the Framework is a tool for marking progress. Measuring results is important not only for states that must improve their security sector performance, it is vital for international partners seeking to evaluate their assistance programs. No one familiar with escalating security challenges in the developing world questions the need for new thinking and fresh approaches. The Security Governance Accountability and Performance toolkit should thus be viewed as a contribution to a wider global effort to address this problem. It exists to be applied, tested and improved upon. Adopt it and use it in that spirit. William M. Bellamy

8

9 Introduction TOC 9 Introduction: Safety, Security, Stability Uniformed security services are among the most important government institutions of nearly every state in the world. In a sense, safety and security services are the most basic element of what the state is meant to provide, and in many places security institutions are the only formal state entity with which citizens ever come in contact. Security services are tasked with providing for the stability of a state and the safety and security of communities within its borders both roles that are foundational for development and general quality of life. In addition, militaries everywhere work with neighboring states to tackle regional security challenges, and are often on the front lines of issues of global concern, working closely with international partners to combat violent extremism, transnational organized crime, health pandemics and other pressing challenges. Because of the central role those in uniform play in so many areas, their effectiveness is constantly evaluated, and, ideally, they are continually being asked to improve. These improvements take many different forms. Large-scale, formal Security Sector Reform (SSR) programs, often led by the United Nations, are an obvious example, but transformation of the security services happens in less visible ways on a continual basis nearly everywhere. Sometimes security services need to change in response to a new or evolving security threat. At other times change comes about through security assistance partnerships with regional or global powers. Irrespective of what precipitates changes or reforms, the way in which they are planned, monitored and implemented is crucial to ensuring effectiveness and sustainability. Partners has adopted the following guiding principles for our work supporting reform processes: A holistic approach to security sector governance is necessary with an emphasis on managing transparent reform processes within a framework of democratic control and oversight, involving a broad range of actors at national, regional and local levels. A transformative agenda is required to build trust between government, the security sector and society through behavioral change and a rights-based approach, favoring professionalization and eschewing political, ethnic or other bias. A national vision of security is essential to prioritizing human security over the preservation of political interests, it also balances operational improvements with institutional reform. Reformers must implement the lessons already learned within SSR, and foster local authorship, beyond national elites within government. 1 Security reforms are frequently carried out in the frenzied days following conflict or political transition, or in the midst of an ongoing security threat. These high-intensity conditions mean that the process for designing reform initiatives is often highly

10 10 TOC Introduction politicized and frequently focused primarily on addressing immediate challenges. These initiatives are rarely comprehensive because they are so focused on immediate political or security gains. Recognizing this reality, Partners for Democratic Change (Partners) has developed the Security Governance Accountability and Performance (S-GAP) Toolkit. S-GAP provides local and national civil society and government leaders, and members of security services a foundation for security policy-making that promotes a comprehensive planning strategy. The tool also provides a framework for monitoring implementation as reform initiatives evolve. A key feature of S-GAP is its emphasis on an inclusive policymaking process. Institutional reforms too often fail because they lack local support or buy-in or are otherwise unsuited to a given context. This is particularly true in the case of improvements to security institutions, which are often developed in capital cities through the participation of a relatively small number of experts. Partners believes that effective reform initiatives must secure input from all the major stakeholder groups, including those from civil society, the government, the security sector, and even the international community. In order to be successful, those whom the reform is meant to serve must be involved. Audience and Purpose Most existing security sector assessment tools are directed at international audiences as part of a larger SSR or security assistance effort. While the S-GAP Toolkit can be useful for these international actors, it is primarily intended for local and national actors from civil society, government, and the security sector. S-GAP is designed to help these local actors to assess the quality of their own security system and identify windows of opportunity to improve its functioning. The purpose of S-GAP is to guide assessment and planning around improvements to the security sector and the broader security system. 2 In the ideal scenario, S-GAP is used to guide a multistakeholder working group composed of civil society, government, security sector, and, in some cases, international actors through a comprehensive assessment process. It further provides a platform for planning reforms and for conducting ongoing monitoring and re-assessment. Given political realities, this formal and inclusive process is not possible in many if not most contexts. The S-GAP guide in this toolkit provides guidance on how to use the toolkit in more restrictive environments for stakeholder education, limited assessments, dialogues between stakeholder groups, building constituencies for policy improvements, and other uses depending on what is feasible in a given context. Development of the Toolkit The Toolkit draws on international best practices, international treaties and declarations; it is built on the latest in academic and practitioner thinking on security management and policy and security sector reform. S-GAP was influenced by many existing security assessment frameworks, some of which are described in greater detail in Annex A. In addition to a strong grounding in international standards, the initial conceptualization of S-GAP as well as the edits made to this second edition, were developed in consultation with a diverse group of experts and development practitioners from around the world who are working to improve the way their security sector functions. These included more

11 Introduction TOC 11 than 100 local and national civil society leaders, elected and career government representatives, international organizations and donors, and those in uniform including both military and police. We held these consultations in a diversity of geographic, political, and security contexts including Liberia, Mexico, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Yemen. Through this process, we have designed S-GAP to meet the practical assessment and planning needs of these leaders from the very begining. In addition to these consultations, Partners co-hosted an event with the United States Institute of Peace in January 2015 where leading experts in security sector reform, citizen security, and related fields from Washingtonbased NGOs, think tanks, and the United States Government were invited to provide feedback on a draft of the framework. This version reflects the comments and suggestions received during that event Structure of the S-GAP Toolkit The S-GAP Toolkit contains two main tools: the S-GAP Framework and the S-GAP Guide. The Framework provides an organized structure to assess the condition of any given security sector and the broader security system. The accompanying Guide provides strategies for using the Framework in a variety of contexts. Framework The S-GAP Framework is a tool for assessing the functioning of a security sector and broader security system. There are myriad factors involved in supporting the proper functioning of a strong system for ensuring security. For the purposes of the S-GAP Framework, Partners has organized these factors into three categories: Governance, Accountability and Performance. These three categories, in the context of the S-GAP toolkit, refer specifically to governance, accountability, and performance of the security sector. There are many other potential ways one could organize the concepts contained in this Toolkit; consequently, these terms though carefully selected were chosen among many ways in which the concepts could be organized. Governance of the security sector is the process by which citizens and the state define security, public safety, and justice needs, and establish and implement laws and policies to address those needs. This process must include the proper allocation of resources, promote the rule of law and human rights norms, and result in professional, effective, legitimate and equitable institutions. Accountability of the security sector is the compliance of state security, public safety and justice actors with robust internal and external conduct review mechanisms as well as with the laws and policies governing their institutional missions; the transparency of these actors to the population they serve; and the ability of non-state actors (media, civil society organizations, and citizens) to publicize violations and seek redress in cases of alleged wrong doing by security, public safety and justice actors. Performance of the security sector is the effective execution of the mandates of the various security, public safety and justice institutions as defined by the civilian leadership and accordance with domestic and international laws, policies, and regulations, in order to meet the various security, public safety, and justice needs of the population. Partners acknowledges the highly interconnected nature of each of these categories. Rather than being independent of one another, each of these categories is highly interrelated and there is a great deal of overlap among them.

12 12 TOC Introduction The S-GAP Framework divides governance, accountability and performance into three sub-categories. These sub-categories are further divided into three secondary categories, for a total of 27 elements for assessment. Within each of these 27 secondary components are a series of guiding questions. The guiding questions will help users identify strengths and weaknesses of their security sector, and areas for potential reform. The way in which a security system functions is highly context specific, and by extension, so are any attempts to improve or change the way that system functions. As such, these guiding questions are not intended as measurable indicators. Instead, the guiding questions should be understood as key factors that users should consider when developing a thorough and nuanced understanding of their security system s functioning. While S-GAP does not provide measurable indicators, the Framework does provide a scoring mechanism that both helps users to identify strengths and weaknesses in their security system, and develop a baseline for monitoring progress towards improvements to the system. To some degree, the scores are subjective; they are informed by the reflections on the guiding questions and evidence that can be collected on the actual state of the performance of a security system. It is ultimately up to users to reach an agreement about how well their security system is performing along a given element. As one would expect, the scores are more useful when they are determined through dialogue across sectors, requiring debate and compromise. Without this, there is a potential for bias to skew scores if users with similar points of view participate in scoring. An important feature of the S-GAP scoring mechanism is that it helps users assess two aspects of their efforts to improve the way their security system functions both the approach and the implementation of that approach. While most assessment frameworks focus on the approach, that is, the plans, processes, programs, or other efforts [that] have been identified to develop or support a particular capability 2 S-GAP also helps users assess the quality of the implementation of those approaches. Often, laws, policies, and other approaches reflect international best practices in theory but are not implemented in practice. By considering both approach and implementation for each sub-component, users will be able to better identify weaknesses in their reform process and address them accordingly. As previously noted, the various elements of the Framework are based on international agreements, standards and best practices such as those contained in the United States Government s Interagency Security Sector Assessment Framework, the OECD DAC Handbook on SSR, the Tshwane Principles, DCAF s numerous resources, and many others. Where possible, references are included throughout the Toolkit where specific documents or instruments have informed an element of the Toolkit. Guide The S-GAP Guide is a toolk it that can used in a variety of ways. Opportunities for using S-GAP and the manner in which it is used depend on context and the objectives of its users. In politically permissive context the Framework can be used to facilitate dialogue amongst a diverse group of users, ideally from different sectors of society including civil society, government, the security services, and where appropriate members of the international community.

13 Introduction TOC 13 It can help these users to jointly assess the functioning of various elements of their security system, and identify windows of opportunity to work together. The Guide provides a set of strategies, approaches and techniques that can be used to create a coherent reform plan and skills to monitor the implementation of that plan over time. The approaches that the Guide highlights include education, caucusing, engaging in dialogue, conducting assessments, planning and monitoring. Understanding that changes to something as contentious and political as the security system require political negotiation, the strategies in the S-GAP Guide help users manage the various interests of stakeholders involved and the power dynamics that exist between them in order to facilitate this negotiation. An inclusive multi-stakeholder process will not be possible in every context. In many if not most cases, the situation will simply not be ripe for this kind of collaboration. The S-GAP Guide explains a number of ways the Toolkit can be used depending on the context. While an ideal context will allow users to employ all of these strategies, in some cases the Toolkit may need to be used in a more limited way. The Guide will help users to identify which of these uses will be most relevant in their context. Educate To impart knowledge and improve understanding Monitor To watch, observe and check plans and actions over a period of time Caucus To undertake discussions on an issue with a group of people united by shared interests Plan To think about, discuss and arrange the details of a program of action Dialogue To exchange ideas and opinions among different parties Assess To make a judgment about the value, size and importance of a topic

14 Framework

15 Framework TOC 15 Framework How should we think about Security? People define security differently depending on the country or region of the world they come from, the sector they work in, or even the immediate context in which they are applying the definition. To the extent that any universal understanding of this concept exists, that understanding continually evolves. Traditionally, security has been defined by inter-state conflict, other military threats and issues related to state sovereignty and territorial integrity. While these international security issues underpinned much of the thinking about security until the early 1990 s, the end of the Cold War marked a shift in the way many people now think about security. For many, focus began to shift from inter-state threats and started to acknowledge the many other threats now facing the world, most of which are unconcerned with state boundaries global health pandemics, climate change and environmental degradation, violent extremism, transnational organized crime, and conflict over resources such as water, land and minerals. Security is not just about threats to the state, but about threats to populations, communities and individuals. The concept of human security has been promoted by the United Nations for the past two decades and emphasizes not only traditional, physical security threats that people face, but also their economic, environmental, food, health, personal and political security. Since the emergence of the human security concept in the early 1990 s academic and practitioner scholarship on human security has continued to evolve, with consensus emerging that human security is at the core of long-term stability and development. A key element of the concept is the emphasis on the importance of meeting the security needs of individual citizens, both for individual well-being and for the stability of the state. Partners believes that security system assessments should be: Comprehensive, reviewing the security system as a whole for areas of potential weakness and strength to build upon. This includes but is not limited to all defense, security, public safety, and justice institutions of the state, as well as relevant non-state actors in justice and security. Inclusive, integrating the experiences and perspectives of a wide range of stakeholders, including civil society, government, security services, and others in order to ensure ongoing support and promote sustainability of reforms. Transparent, so that the public understands any changes that might occur as a result, and are therefore better able to support those changes. Recurring, happening on an ongoing basis so that the security system is able to respond effectively to ever evolving contexts. Reform should be thought of as simply adaptation, a natural process that the security services are continually engaged in.

16 16 TOC Framework Partners created the S-GAP Toolkit based on the understanding that the functioning of a security system is meant to both ensure stability of the state under traditional notions of security, and promote the human security of the people living within that state. The Toolkit is specifically designed to help users to identify windows of opportunity to improve their security system s ability to accomplish these two goals Roles and responsibilities in a democratically governed security system Armed and Public Security Forces Police and Military Paramilitary Border security Coast guards Intelligence community Customs agents Non-State Actors Rebels Militias Gangs Criminal organizations Cartels Plans, directs, resources Reports, informs, coordinates Informs, provides insight. Reports, informs, coordinates Civil Management/ Oversight Bodies Executive Civilian ministries Legislatures Justice system Municipal and district government/councils Informs, provides insight Civil Society Media Academia Associations Think tanks Business Traditional/Customary Other Actors Donors International Financial Institutions Neighbors Regional organizations

17 Framework TOC 17 What do we mean by Security Sector or Security System? The terms security sector and security system are both used in the S-GAP Toolkit For the purposes of S-GAP, the security sector should be understood as state actors, including both state security providers and government security management and oversight bodies. Members of the justice system are included to the extent that they play a direct role in the functioning of the rest of the security sector. Rule of law reform is inextricably linked to any effort to improve the functioning of the security sector, but the S-GAP Framework only focuses on a limited aspect of the overall considerations in rule of law reform. Additional justice sector and rule of law reform resources are provided. In the S-GAP Guide, security system is used to describe a broader group of actors that encompasses the security sector but also includes a larger group of additional non-state actors. These include members of both formal and informal civil society, and non-state providers of justice and security services. By considering the security system as a whole, S-GAP users gain an understanding of the various roles and responsibilities each of these actors have and, ideally, identify opportunities for these various individuals and groups to work together to improve safety, security and stability. As a field, security sector reform has tended to focus primarily on the functioning of those in uniform. Needless to say, comprehensive and sustainable reform requires a broader understanding of the many actors and factors involved in the way security is maintained. In a well-functioning security system these actors would work together as illustrated in the diagram on the previous page. A Wholistic View The S-GAP Framework For the sake of clarity and to provide a starting point for assessment and planning, the S-GAP Framework divides and organizes the elements of security into three levels: components, sub-components, and secondary components. Components are used to describe the three key areas that contribute to security: Governance, Accountability and Performance. These components group together related elements. Each component is further delineated into three sub-components and a further three secondary components. Through the use of the Framework, users are able to score a given security system on 27 elements, as well as develop a composite score for the overall system. In certain contexts, this score can be useful in creating a baseline against which a reform effort can be measured during future re-assessments. However, scoring has inherent limitations. Continually low scores provide a useful guide for areas of improvement but may also have a demoralizing effect, especially if reforms seem to be moving too slowly, for example. If the assessment leads to many high scores this can sometimes mask important issues that remain. While there are benefits in using the scoring methodology to align percepts on each aspect of the security system and to establish a baseline, it is up to those conducting the assessment to decide whether or not they use the scoring system. If there is no scoring, S-GAP can be used solely as the catalyst for conversation. Utilizing the Framework should be understood as much as an opportunity for all stakeholders engaged on issues related to security as an exercise in assessing the state of a security system.

18 S-GAP Framework Governance of the security sector is the process by which citizens and the state define security, public safety, and justice needs, and establish and implement laws and policies to address those needs. This process must include the proper allocation of resources, promote the rule of law and human rights norms, and result in professional, effective, legitimate and equitable institutions. Institutional Mandates Guiding Principles for Defense and Security, Public Safety and Justice Separation of Security Management Responsibilities Guiding Principles for Emergency Response and Extraordinary Circumstances Policy Environment National Security Strategy Budget Process Civilian Engagement and Participation Legal Environment Human Rights Laws Courts Governance Security Sector Conduct Governance of Non-State and Non-Statutory Security and Justice Actors Accountability of the security sector is the compliance of state security, public safety and justice actors with robust internal and external conduct review mechanisms as well as with the laws and policies governing their institutional missions; the transparency of these actors to the population they serve; and the ability of non-state actors (media, civil society organizations and citizens) to publicize violations and seek redress in cases of alleged wrongdoing by security, public safety and justice actors. Supervising and Monitoring Processes State-based External Review and Oversight Mechanisms Internal Review Mechanisms Independent Review and Monitoring Transparency Availability of Information Right to Freedom of Information Clarity for Disclosure of Sensitive Intelligence Information Remedy Courts and Tribunals Transitional Justice Processes Informal Justice Processes Performance of the security sector is the effective execution of the mandates of the various security, public safety and justice institutions as defined by the civilian leadership in accordance with domestic and international laws, policies and regulations, in order to meet the various security, public safety and justice needs of the population. Police Performance Adequacy of Human Resources (Police) Financial and Technical Resources and Preparation (Police) Police Effectiveness Defense Sector Performance Adequacy of Human Resources (Defense Sector) Financial and Technical Resources and Preparation (Defense Sector) Defense Sector Effectiveness Justice Sector Performance Adequacy of Human Resources (Justice Sector) Financial and Technical Resources and Preparation (Justice Sector) Justice Sector Effectiveness

19

20 Using the S-GAP Framework

21 Using the Framework TOC 21 Using the S-GAP Framework Any government leader grappling with security challenges will have difficulty determining which reforms should come first governance, accountability or performance. There is a tendency, particularly in countries experiencing violent conflict or lawlessness, to focus on the performance element the security sector s capacity to address immediate security challenges and ideally, contribute to improved stability. In countries emerging from conflict, reform necessarily focuses on improved accountability and redress for past abuses. After a political Monitoring transition, a new administration may attempt to address perceived weaknesses in the governance of the security sector to ensure sufficient Planning democratic control over the security services. New political leadership may favor tangible, short-term reforms to satisfy constituents and score political points, but often struggles to achieve more complex and politically contentious changes. Experience from previous reform efforts has shown that changes in one area always necessitate reforms in other areas. When leaders strive to take a more comprehensive approach to reform, they face significant tradeoffs in the allocation of resources as well as challenges in navigating and reconciling divergent interests. The S-GAP Framework and Guide is designed to help reformers develop a comprehensive reform plan, identify windows of opportunity for reform, and negotiate more complex or politically contentious reform efforts. The strategies in this section can be used as a starting point to initiate discussion, and as a way to identify entry points for action. The Framework portion of the Toolkit includes guiding questions intended to inform the thorough analysis of a wide range elements to determine strengths Education Governance & Political Economy Analysis Stakeholder Mapping & Analysis Assessment Caucusing Dialogue and weaknesses of the governance, accountability and performance of a country s security sector. This section provides strategies for reformers to use for what Partners believes are the essential building blocks for effective reform education, caucusing, dialogue, assessment, planning and monitoring. Each of these activities has utility in a variety of contexts and, as described further below, can be useful individually, or ideally, as components of a larger institutional reform process. Each activity prioritizes incorporating diverse viewpoints and encourages the adoption

22 22 TOC Using the Framework of an inclusive approach to security reform planning as a key element of any successful reform program. While ideally security reform would be tackled as part of a multi-stakeholder collaborative process, contextual factors may determine more feasible alternative uses. S-GAP can be used as a research tool, providing a particular sector an opportunity to analyze current and potential security provision. S-GAP can also be used as an educational tool, to enhance understanding of current and potential security provision. This education could take place within a particular sector, for example security services, or within a particular location, for example in a local community context with significant security needs. S-GAP can be used in a multi-stakeholder process for security reform if a variety of factors are addressed and coalesced for a ripe moment, 4 but it can also be a multi stakeholder process for dialogue across sectors about security provision. S-GAP can also be used to support advocacy, whether by members of the security services or civil society organizations. Ultimate application and use of S-GAP depends upon the particular context and opportunities available. Conducting a thorough context analysis including both political economy and conflict factors and a thorough stakeholder mapping and analysis are essential first steps to ascertain the best use of S-GAP. The Landscape for Reform It is imperative for anyone leading, facilitating, supporting or participating in a reform process to have a thorough understanding of the context in which they will be working. Not all reform efforts begin the same way or from the same point. Those interested in reform must gauge the ripeness of the opportunity for reform, and should take note of current or historical attempts at reform. While leaders of a country undertaking reform may think they understand the dynamics of the way security is governed, it is important that their understanding is well informed by a range of perspectives. Understanding context is particularly important for outsiders who are supporting the process donors, outsiders from the security sector, or external consultants and international development professionals. Conducting a Context Analysis One approach to determining if the time is ripe for reform is to conduct a Governance and Political Economy Analysis (GPEA). GPEA is a way to develop an understanding of the prevailing governance, political and economic processes in society. 5 Before undertaking security reforms, the contextual factors particular to a country s security provision must be identified, understood and analyzed. The diagram on the next page illustrates the elements and considerations of GPEA. An important first step in security reform is to identify aspects that seem to be working well and those that seem lacking. This can be especially challenging because security and security policy is a highly politicized issue. In any given country there are a diversity of stakeholders, needs, economic realities and regional differences. Identifying the relationships of power and economics through governance and political economy analysis and the factors and actors of conflict dynamics through a context analysis will be important elements in addressing this challenge. 6

23 Using the Framework TOC 23 GPEA is also useful in helping to identify and better understand the role and influence of donors on security. Additionally, those conducting analyses must identify their sources of knowledge how they know what they know. A variety of sources for information and analysis will be most effective, including: first-hand knowledge, outsider perspectives, user perceptions, policy mandates and guidelines, and published data and reports. Why do reforms fail to take root? The need for a systemic approach geared to a specific focus on the hidden issues The visible world: national strategies, action plans, formal institutional structures Political Processes: contestation and negotiation of power, wealth and goods Economic and Financial Processes and their link with politics Formal and informal institutions Relations, incentives and interests of stakeholders (unexpressed) Security and justice assistance is inherently political. Security and justice are core functions of the state. They affect power distribution and state-society relations, and involve multi-layered power relations among a range of providers operating at different levels. Donor programmes tend to adopt technical approaches focused on strengthening the capacity of state institutions, yet evidence that this improves citizens experiences of security and justice is limited. The importance of a politically nuanced approach to security and justice programming is widely recognised, but a mismatch between policy and practice remains. 7

24 Security Stakeholders * National Security Advisory Bodies Parliamentary Committees Defense, Finance, Justice Executive Presidency Ministry of Interior Justice Ministry Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ministry of Finance/ Treasury Municipal/Prefecture/ Provincial/District/ Chiefdom Level Bodies Public/Civil Servants Prison Administration Prison Guards Criminal Investigation & Prosecution Services Judiciary Prosecutors Attorneys Judges Bailiffs Traditional/Customary Judicial Systems Human Rights Commissions Ombudsmen Armed Forces Gendarmerie Police (preventative & investigative) Intelligence Services International Forces (Peacekeeping, Intervening Forces) Coast Guard Other Parliamentary Forces Border Guards Reserve Units Customs & Immigration Presidential Guards Uniform Private Security Forces/Bodyguard Units Local Militias/Security Units Traditional Warrior Groups Neighborhood Guards SECURITY Religious/Ethnic/Clan Police Liberation Armies Guerrilla Armies Vigilante Groups Civil Society CSOs/CBOs Traditional Leaders/ Councils Women s Groups Youth Groups Labor Unions/Groups Media Academia Local & International Private Sector Neighborhood Groups & Crime Prevention Organizations Lawyers Association International & local NGOs Customary & Traditional Authorities * Each country and context has some combination of the security stakeholders highlighted in this diagram. A thorough stakeholder analysis will refashion this diagram to illustrate the specific context.

25 Stakeholders TOC 25 Stakeholder Mapping & Analysis Identifying the key people and institutions that have an interest in the way a given security system functions supports a better understanding of the context and the potential successes of reform initiatives. Key stakeholders can be identified through a Stakeholder Mapping & Analysis exercise. Mapping is vital for understanding the potential political negotiations that will be necessary for productive reform planning. Key stakeholders include: public/civil servants (including government), uniformed personnel (formal state security forces and, potentially, non-state actors), civil society (including international actors), and multilateral organizations, allies, neighboring states, and others from the international community. Identifying who has an interest must be followed by identifying why they are interested. A visual representation of who may be included can be found in the stakeholder map diagram on the next page. Regardless of the manner in which security reform is approached, stakeholder mapping and analysis is essential. Understanding the key relationships is fundamental to understanding how a security system functions, and how it can function in the future. The following section describes the various stakeholder groups in more detail Government Government stakeholders include the broad category of elected, appointed and career members of the civilian state institutions with varying degrees of direct involvement with the security sector. This group includes members of both the executive and legislative branches, such as parliamentarians, interior, or defense ministry representatives. This also includes local government leaders, ombudsman, members of the judiciary including judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys, and members of human rights commissions. Also important are members of truth commissions or other reconciliation bodies, when those exist. Questions for a Stakeholder Analysis Who are the stakeholders? What are their interests? What power do they hold? What are their common interests? What are the points of disagreement and contention? What are their priorities as a group? What talents and resources do they bring to the process? What level of access to information do they have? Security For the purposes of this guide, security actors refers to those who are uniformed with a specific, official role in providing for the security and safety of the country s citizens, whether at a national, regional or local level. Such personnel include at a minimum members of the police, military and intelligence services. Members of civilian and non-civilian courts systems such as bailiffs and court officers are also considered members of the security sector. While comprehensive judicial and legal reform is beyond the scope of S-GAP, these actors are included in the accompanying Framework for consideration. They are included where their activities have a direct impact on the provision of security.

26 26 TOC Stakeholders In addition to these formal state actors, there is also a broader array of non-state actors that often play an important role in the provision of security. In many places, the most prominent example of this is private security guards that provide services for businesses, airports and private citizens as a complement to state security services. Beyond these, however, are groups that are often considered more controversial: vigilante organizations, armed community organizations, religious, ethnic, or clan police, local militias and traditional warrior groups. While not generally considered to be part of a security sector, liberation or opposition armies, other guerilla groups and gangs are also important security actors in many contexts. Stakeholder mapping during the S-GAP process should determine whether and how these groups should be engaged in the reform process. These groups often have considerable power and influence, and can be spoilers of the pursuit of improved security and stability. Citizens and the groups that represent them can also hold strong opinions about the appropriate role of these armed non-state actors. In many cases they will need to be engaged in some way during a reform process. Civil Society Civil society actors are the groups, associations and organizations formed to represent the interests of citizens and achieve a mission or realize a particular vision. The civil society sector is large, diverse and often amorphous and generally includes the associations that are organized outside of the government and market forces, and beyond individuals and families. In many contexts, the main actors from this group that must be involved in the security reform process include local and national non-governmental organizations, think tanks, traditional leaders and councils, youth groups, women s groups, academia, media, religious leaders and organizations, community based organizations and labor unions. Political parties, whether conceptualized as civil society or government, should also be included. International Actors This category represents a large and diverse array of organizations, companies and countries. In some instances, donor countries and multilateral organizations such as the United Nations play a significant role in driving security reform processes and even in establishing reform priorities. In the wake of conflict, these actors will often press for and initiate a formal security reform process, creating working groups and pressuring the host nation toward a reform agenda. Donor countries may make aid and other forms of assistance, such as military or policing equipment or training, contingent on a commitment to security reform. National actors must be cognizant of the diverse motivations influencing the priorities of external actors. Specifically, external actors may promote reform or specific modernization efforts because it most directly addresses their own interests or threats. When working through the S-GAP process, understanding the diverse and often conflicting interests these four groups have with regards to security reform is vital for formulating appropriate initiatives. As stated earlier, security reform is not simply an objective assessment but is fundamentally a political process. Each of these groups has its own interests for engaging in the reform process. Some stakeholders may not see the need for reform and instead are

27 Windows of Opportunity TOC 27 most interested in maintaining the status quo. Making the report of the stakeholder mapping and analysis public may build understanding of the issues by highlighting points of share interest and clarifying areas in need of further discussion and negotiation. The mapping can be viewed as an opportunity to build credibility in the process, demonstrate transparency and constructively frame the reform discussion. Windows of Opportunity Strategies to build constituencies for reform Education In each context, opportunities to improve the way a security system functions will differ. The governance and political economy analysis coupled with the stakeholder mapping and analysis described previously helps reformers gain a better understanding of the context for their reform efforts. They are also useful for understanding when the circumstances are not ripe for a reform process. Monitoring Planning Assessment Caucusing Dialogue Using the S-GAP Framework will help reformers identify the windows of opportunity for reform and how it impacts the larger security governance, accountability and performance system. Reformers can employ the Framework using a range of different strategies. The following section of the guide focuses on six key opportunities to educate, to caucus, to dialogue, to assess, to plan and to monitor. The strategies described in this section can advance a comprehensive reform agenda or can be taken independently to advance an incremental approach to reform.

28 28 TOC Windows of Opportunity EDUCATE To impart knowledge and improve understanding For various groups involved in security reform initiatives, whether from civil society, the security sector, or civilian government, there is likely to be a significant range of knowledge, understanding and perspectives on the governance, accountability and performance of the security system. Improving the knowledge and understanding of all the participants in a reform process can create a shared foundation for future collaboration. Education activities can also serve as an opportunity to develop a more sophisticated understanding of internationals standards, best practices, and a deeper understanding of participants own security system. In some cases it can support the rebalancing of power from technocrats and subject matter experts to community leaders and citizens. Learning together can build trust, new relationships and improve understanding of the key issues in the reform process and opportunities to engage. Education activities should engage participants identified in the stakeholder analysis. Who will play a key role in future reform processes? Who is most in need of support to play a constructive role in reform? In practice, a program to educate stakeholders might include: Existing legal and constitutional mandates and guidelines for security sector organizations and personnel Frameworks for standard operating procedures related to security for government, civil society, and specific security sector personnel and agencies Local and regional intra-state security mechanisms International security norms and treaties Government powers and oversight, including if there is distribution of powers between branches of government (e.g. executive, legislative and judicial branches) Roles and responsibilities of stakeholders civil society, media, academic institutions, etc. For a facilitator leading the learning opportunity, it provides an opportunity to bring together understanding of the local context with international best practice. When done well it also makes it possible to gain better understanding of what areas still remain difficult to understand knowing what you don t know.