Citizen Engagement in Security Sector Reform: Challenges and Opportunities by Partners for Democratic Change

Acknowledgements The Partners for Democratic Change team would like to thank the following people for their support of the Citizen Engagement in Security Sector Reform project: Mike Bittrick and Susan McCarty of the United States Department of State Africa Bureau, Dr. Saran Daraba Kaba, Secretary General of the Mano River Union and keynote speaker, Colonel Sue Ann Sandusky, Todd Coker, Lina Kray and Nancy Estes from the US Diplomatic and Development missions to the region, Ely Dieng for his expert intervention on citizen engagement, and the facilitators of the Monrovia symposium Fatoumata Diallo, Mathurin Houngnikpo, Emile Ouedraogo, and Oury Traore. Partners would also like to thank Partners Senegal Board Chairman General Lamine CissĂŠ and Executive Director Colonel Birame Diop.

Additionally, Partners thanks the Africa Center for Strategic Studies (ACSS) for allowing Dr. Houngnikpo to join us for the event and for their ongoing investment in SSR in the region. Maguette Diaw and his team provided impeccable simultaneous translation services for the event, facilitating conversation between participants that otherwise would have been impossible. Special thanks go to Seanan Denizot and her team at Mangrove Management for the logistical support they provided for the symposium. And finally Partners would like to thank all the participants who gave their time and expertise to make the event a success. This initiative would not have been possible without support from this committed group of leaders.

Table of Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1) Regional Approaches to Security: Challenges and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Findings from Presentation and Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2) Engaging Citizens to Improve Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Findings from Presentation and Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3) Decentralization as a Means of Improving National Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Findings from Presentation and Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4) Resource Mobilization for Security Reform and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Findings from Presentation and Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Key Findings and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 About the Citizen Engagement in Security Sector Reform Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Appendix A- Attendee List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Appendix B- Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

INTRODUCTION This report summarizes a set of key issues related to citizen engagement in security sector reform (SSR) in West Africa. It draws on available literature and the findings from a regional project that culminated in a symposium in Monrovia, Liberia in September 2012.The Citizen Engagement in Security Sector Reform in the Mano River Region (CESSR) project focused on the key security challenges facing the region and explored opportunities for making further progress on security sector reform and improving citizen security in the Mano River region. This report draws on lessons learned during the project as well as the leading voices in contemporary SSR literature to provide analyses on the following themes.

THEMES ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬

1 2 3 4

Regional Approaches to Security: Challenges and Opportunities Engaging Citizens to Improve Security Decentralization as a Means of Improving National Security Resource Mobilization for Security Reform and Management

The report is organized into six sections. The first two sections lay out the context for security sector reform in the Mano River region and the goals and objectives of the CESSR project; the remainder of the report deals with each of the four topics set out above. These sections provide brief contextual information followed by the lessons learned over the course of pre-conference assessments, conference presentations, and discussion groups. The report’s final section provides a summary of the key findings, as well as recommendations for future engagement.

Citizen Engagement in Security Sector Reform and Security Management — The Context in the Mano River Region of West Africa After decades of conflict, the countries of the Mano River region — Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone — are in a state of fragile peace. As the countries seek to consolidate the gains made possible by the return of a degree of stability, the reform of their respective security sectors is imperative for a successful democratic transition. Given the complex social nature of such a transformation, successful reform programs must include the input of a diverse group of stakeholders. This long-recognized need has not always been adequately fulfilled. More often reforms have taken place from the top-down, with political and security elites tackling the necessary structural reforms but often neglecting to engage citizens. Joint efforts are needed across government, civil society and the security sector to help make improvements to security sector governance, law enforcement, and safety. This in turn will have a positive impact on citizens far beyond the security sector through enhanced livelihoods and food security, improved access to goods and services, and freedom from fear. In short, improved governance in the security sector and inclusion of citizens in the long-term security management process will lead to real and measurable improvements in human security. In former colonial states, the legacy of foreign domination left behind security institutions that understood their primary function as a force for protecting the interests of the regime. In the Mano River region, the preservation of legacy security institutions and their monopoly on force has often

come at the expense of the interests of the population and resulted in political repression, human rights abuses, and in some cases state sponsorship of rebel forces in neighboring countries. At other times, the interests pursued by security forces have been more exclusively their own; military coups have plagued West Africa more than any other region on the continent. Patrick McGowan writes, “To the extent that coup contagion exists in (SubSaharan Africa), it would appear strongest in West Africa,” having been the host of 45% of all African coups between 1956 and 2001 despite having only one-third of the continent’s countries. With 24 coup plots or attempts in the region in the 12 years since 2001, the problem has clearly not been solved. The Mano River countries themselves have been no exception to the rule, having been the site of 52 coup plots or attempts since 1961, or an average of one per year. As the leaders of the countries of the Mano River region provide the political commitment necessary to reform their security sectors, they realize that the specific security structures the colonial powers left behind are a fundamental component that reform efforts will have to address. For example, Côte d’Ivoire and Guinea have highly centralized security structures reminiscent of the style preferred by their former French colonizers. In assessments and programming in the region, Partners for Democractic Change (Partners) has found that this often leads to a lack of adequate security being delivered in the rural areas distant from the capital.

Sierra Leone and Liberia, on the other hand, have decentralized approach to security reflecting their different historical circumstances (Sierra Leone a former British colony and the modern Liberian state founded by freed American slaves). In addition to the legacy of colonialism, the unique recent historical context from which each of the Mano River countries is emerging plays an important role in the shape and pace of their reform efforts. Reform in Liberia and Sierra Leone has been underway for nearly ten years since the restoration of peace following persistent civil wars that plagued those countries. The need for reform in Cote d’Ivoire is a more recent undertaking, however. Former President Laurent Gbagbo refused to accept the outcome of presidential elections in December 2010 despite insistence from the UN and AU that he had been defeated. He instead used the state security forces to support his continued presence in the presidential mansion, leading to a 5-month civil war and considerable damage to the country and its people. Finally, in Guinea, the reform movement has taken off more sluggishly than in its neighboring countries, as the country is moving forward out of a context of decades of general political and security instability, rather than outright civil war. While the events of September 28, 2010 in which security forces massacred hundreds of pro-democracy demonstrators, drew the horrified attention of the international community, the lack of a more generalized conflict may actually serve as a challenge to reformers.

McGowan, Patrick. (2003). “African military coups d’état, 1956-2001: frequency, trends, and distribution.” Journal of Modern African Studies, 41(3). 1

Marshall, Monty G. and Donna Ramsey Marshall. (2012). “Coups d’État, 1946-2011.” Center for Systemic Peace.Figures taken from http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/CSPCoupsCodebook2011.pdf and spreadsheet http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/ CSPCoupsList2011.xls. 3 For the security argument, see Bryden, Alan, BoubacarN’Diaye and ‘FunniOlanisakin. “Challenges of Security Sector Governance in West Africa.” (2008). Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF). 2

Partners for Democratic Change

While large scale conflict obviously creates serious long- term consequences for a country and its people, it has also been noted that a crisis of this nature can serve as the impetus for much needed political, economic, or security reform that might otherwise be difficult to accomplish.3 These structural and historical differences require approaches to reform that are carefully tailored to local needs and conditions. In addition to this, effectively changing the region’s security institutions from organizations meant to protect the interests of the regime to those that serve the population requires more than a top-down revision of legal guidelines for the security sector. Instead, the reform effort itself must be reflective of this new understanding of the primacy of citizen security and the necessity to engaging citizens in the process.4 In order to do this, governments must explore how they can effectively engage ordinary citizens, civic leaders, and civil society organizations in the unfolding process of transformation the security sector is accountable and truly addresses the human security needs of citizens. With this in mind, Partners along with its affiliate organization Partners Senegal, launched a program aimed at enhancing the capacity of civil society organizations (CSOs) to play a role in reform and at encouraging dialogue between these CSOs, government, and uniformed leaders. The program began with a series of assessment missions to the Mano River countries, drawing on Partners’ extensive networks from previous work in the region as well as the

assistance of the USAID and US missions in each country. These assessments helped Partners to identify the most relevant actors from the civil societies, government, and security sectors of the region. These strategically selected individuals were brought together on September 19 and 20, 2012 for a symposium on Citizen Engagement in Security Sector Reform in the Mano River Region in Monrovia, Liberia.The purpose of a regional event was two-fold. First, while SSR programs need to be carefully crafted for a given context, the strengthening of relationships between dedicated and well-placed actors across the region can help them to support one another to move reform forward in each of their countries. Second, SSR is not merely about reorienting the security sector and subordinating them to democratic control. SSR is also about improving the security sector’s ability to provide adequate security services to the population. Because many of the security challenges facing the people of the Mano River region are regional in nature5 , there is a need to develop mechanisms to facilitate cooperation between security agencies at the regional level to help them address those challenges.

Schnabel, Albrecht and Hans Born. (2011). “Security Sector Reform: Narrowing the Gap Between Theory and Practice.” Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF). 5 These include human, drug and small weapons trafficking, environmental challenges such as deforestation, refugee flows, health and food security challenges, and a lack of security provision in the rural areas many of which are in the border regions, among other things (See table on page 12). 4

Goals and Objectives The main goal of the CESSR event was to:

“Facilitate dialogue amongst the participants - achieving greater citizen involvement in security sector reform and management.” In order to achieve this goal, several objectives were set:

Objectives ¬ 1 Provide a forum for explicit discussion on the most pressing 111 LLLihuman security challenges in the region ¬ 2 Analyze the status of each country’s security sector reform LLLiprogress and methods ¬ 3 Strengthen strategic relationships between select individuals LLLifrom government, civil society, and the security sector from LLLithroughout the region

An important step to improve citizen engagement in SSR is for civil society to gain the expertise necessary to formulate and evaluate reforms and provide oversight of the performance of the security sector. Furthermore, these organizations need to develop a deeper understanding of the security needs of their communities and strategies for working more effectively with those in uniform to ensure those needs are met. Strengthening this relationship between civil society and the security sector is crucial to improving the security sector’s ability to provide adequate security services to the population. In Partners’ and Partners Senegal’s previous work, particularly in Guinea, it has become clear that despite good intentions of many within the security leadership, they often lack awareness of the specific nature of the security challenges faced by the populations they are meant to serve.

Citizen engagement is an essential component of transforming security sectors in the Mano River Program Participants region to support a shift away from security forces Civil Society Government/ Uniform serving the narrow interests of political regimes towards greater accountability to the population. Cote d’Ivoire 6 6 Each of the project’s objectives were intended to Sierra Leone 4 3 support this citizen engagement either through Guinea 6 6 providing them with needed information or by Liberia 11 6 building key relationships.

Partners for Democratic Change

Regional Approaches to Security Challenges & Opportunities CONTEXT

The Mano River countries are some of the poorest and most under-developed in the world. Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone are all in the bottom ten countries on the Human Development Index and Côte d’Ivoire follows shortly behind at 18th.6 This lack of development places severe pressure on the security of the region’s populations. For example, despite adequate rainfall and arable land in much of the region, food security remains an all too familiar challenge. Many are also living without adequate access to healthcare services, either because they can’t afford them or because the needed services are inaccessible in their region. High rates of unemployment fuel social tension and volatility as people, particularly the growing youth population, struggle to make ends meet. In addition to the strains of underdevelopment, many of the region’s security challenges are related to growing cross-border criminality. In part as a result of the security sectors’ inability to adequately police the thousands of kilometers of borders shared by the four countries, trafficking of drugs, people, and small arms has become a major

problem. Additionally, refugee flows across these borders have placed significant stress on regional stability as already-strained host communities push back against the influx of new people. The regional nature of these challenges requires a regional approach to address them. At the broader West African level, ECOWAS has already made progress towards a shared approach with the development of a framework of regional cooperation for addressing security threats. Within the Mano River region more specifically, support for a regional approach was first indicated in 2000 with the signing of the 15th Protocol of the Mano River Union Secretariat (MRU), a sub-regional body formed in 1973 to facilitate cooperation between the four countries on fiscal, political, and security challenges. However, progress towards the realization of the ideals of the protocol has been slow as the region has struggled with conflict and instability.

2011 Human Development Index Report. (2011). United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Data drawn from “Human Development Statistical Tables,” available at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/mediacentre/humandevelopmentreportpresskits/2011report/ 6

FINDINGS FROM PRESENTATIONS AND 1 DICUSSIONS

Dr. Saran Daraba Kaba delivering the keynote address — sharing the main challenges facing the Mano River region and key opportunities for addressing them Recognizing the need for greater regional cooperation on these issues, Partners made this issue a key focus of the event and supported the continued strengthening of the MRU as a body to facilitate this cooperation in the future. Dr. Saran Daraba Kaba, Secretary General of the MRU, provided the opening presentation of the symposium. Her comments and the subsequent discussions highlighted the following additional challenges:

POverty Poverty is a key factor in fuelling instability and threatening security, and is one of the region’s most fundamental security challenges. The problem is made particularly acute as a result of the “youth

bulge” in the region. The youth of today are more highly educated than those who came of age during the civil wars of the 1990s and 2000s, and they have higher expectations as a result. However, without productive engagement and with a majority of youth seriously under-employed, tensions that threaten stability rise.7 The World Bank has found that one in two young people who join rebel movements cite unemployment as their main motivation. In West Africa, unemployment fuels political violence and recruitment into armed groups, including the Islamist extremist movements in the Sahel.8 Poor infrastructure, including poorly maintained roads, impedes intra-regional communication, as

“Youth unemployment and regional insecurity in West Africa.” Report from UN Office for West Africa, published on 31 Dec 2005 Look, Anne. (2012). “Rising Youth Unemployment Endangers Regional Stability”Voice of America.11 July. http://www.voanews. com/content/rising-youth-unempolyment-endangers-africas-stability/1382573.html 7 8

Partners for Democratic Change

does limited Internet connectivity and the lack of a For all of the challenges facing the region, there single regional cellular provider to facilitate com- are also opportunities for meaningful reform to munication between the four countries. improve citizen security. For the first time in many years, all four countries are at peace and working Different administrative toward the consolidation of their fragile democrastructures cies. Emerging from years of civil wars, military Each country has different arrangements for coups, and extreme human rights abuses at the managing its respective security sector. There is a hands of state security forces, the need for change divide between the Francophone countries and the is evident. As noted throughout the event, this reAnglophone countries that include different legal alization has recently produced high levels of pocodes, government and security sector structures litical will for SSR, a development that must be susand codes of practice. Each country has also fo- tained long-term if lasting improvements are to be cused on different aspects of security sector reform. achieved.

Access to political leaders To achieve citizen engagement in security sector reform, it is necessary for citizens and community and civil society leaders to have access to government and political leaders. This can be difficult in practice. However, the role that women have played in this regard demonstrates what can be achieved. At the conference, Dr. Daraba described how the Mano River Women’s Peace Network (MARWOPNET) courageously stood up to Charles Taylor and other MRU country leaders demanding that they open their doors and listen to the people. Her story underlined that citizen participation must include women, as they offer a unique and critical perspective on security issues and also because they are more acutely affected by certain types of human security threats like human trafficking and sexual and gender based violence (SGBV). The need to integrate gender in the security sector was a theme that resonated throughout the conference.

Regional Opportunities

In addition to the official reform programs underway in the region, this political will can be seen in the recent commitment that the four governments have shown for regional cooperation. For the first time in recent history, all four countries are contributing regular dues to the MRU. They have also convened high-level meetings on security and participate in the regular Peace and Security Commission meetings the MRU has hosted. This commitment demonstrates an awareness of the interconnected nature of these countries’ future, and is an important and encouraging development in a region. Recognition of the importance of working closely with a regional organization such as the MRU was a point continually raised by the participants during the two-day event, many of whom did not previously have a complete understanding of the MRU’s potential role. In addition to this, participants proposed a number of other recommendations for improving the opportunity for regional cooperation on security.

¬ All four countries paying MRU dues for the first time ¬ All four are at peace for first time in many years ¬ High level political will to affect change

Promote citizen access to SSR information

discussing SSR and human security between those of different nationalities, or even just different sectors. There is a participant-identified need to develop a tool to provide a common platform for civil-security sector dialogue, both regionally and domestically.

Adequate information about ongoing SSR programs is often difficult to access by those below the highest levels of political or security authority. Participants emphasized the need for greater dissemination of the work being done in this area so that broader society can play a more effective role Improve civilian oversight in the reform process. While civilian oversight and control of the secuContinued popularization of human rity forces has long been a main cornerstone of security concept SSR programs, there remains a perception amongst The shift in the conception of security from one many that the security forces remain semi-autonin which the state is at the center to one that is fo- omous in their operations. To the extent that civilcused on enhancing human security is not always ian leaders do have control over the security sector, well understood - by security forces or by society some argue that this is insufficient. Instead, they in general. Improving awareness of this concept is explain that more direct involvement of civil soimportant in order to support a new orientation of ciety in security planning, is necessary to protect against the resurgence of the security sector as a the security sector within the region. political tool.

Develop a regional mechanism for civil-security sector dialogue

One of the key challenges discovered during the event was the lack of a common language for

Partners for Democratic Change

Strengthened civil society networks

Justice sector reform as a part of SSR

The Mano River Women’s Peace Network (MARWOPNET) was an invaluable asset to the peacebuilding process during the conflicts that engulfed Liberia and Sierra Leone. Supporting the creation of similar international networks, as well strengthening existing networks, is an important potential tool for consolidating the recent gains in the region and safeguarding against a return to war.

Often overlooked in SSR programs is the importance of justice sector reform. Strong rule of law is crucial to the improvement of overall security, and many have urged that justice sector reform be brought under the umbrella of more comprehensive SSR program.

Recommendations ¬ Promote citizen access to SSR information ¬ Continued popularization of human security concept ¬ Develop a regional mechanism for civil-security sector dialogue ¬ Improve civilian oversight ¬ Strengthened civil society networks ¬ Justice sector reform as a part of SSR

Communications are key: Radio stations across the region provide essential access for citizens including information on security. Rivercess Broadcasting Service in Cestos City, Liberia.

Engaging Citizens to Improve Security 2 CONTEXT The concept of human security was popularized shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union, at a time that has been described by many as a pivotal transition in the understanding of the security paradigm. Since the beginning of the modern state era, states had been in near constant competition, an environment that often led to the outbreak of inter-state conflict. As the Cold War came to an end, however, leaders, scholars, and international organizations began to talk about a transition in the understanding of security from one that was primarily state-centric to one that placed human beings in the center of the security paradigm. Throughout the 1990s African famines were well

publicized, as were human rights abuses by security forces and rebel groups throughout the world. While inter-state threats to security were declining, new threats to security seemed to take the place of war and led many to argue that a new definition of security was needed. Security sector reform began to develop as a field of study and practice during these early years of human security debate.9 Early literature on SSR was largely devoted to defining the concept and its goals, and general acceptance quickly emerged of improved human security as the fundamental goal of reform programs. Scholars and practitioners alike began to understand that individual and

On both days of the event, participants broke into smaller groups to discuss the ideas presented by the speakers.

Partners for Democratic Change

community security is a basic component of national and international security, rather than in competition. Additionally, recognizing a lack of development in many parts of the world as one of the chief challenges facing global security, they argued that security needed to be improved in order for sustainable economic growth to take place.

Challenges to greater civic engagement: ¬ Politicized civil society as a consequence of conflicts ¬ Divisions within civil soicety ¬ Government perceives civil society as a rival, and vice versa ¬ CSOs are often foreign donor dependent/driven ¬ CSOs may lack expertise and human resource support ¬ Donor support for SSR is often oriented towards state institutions, --so there is little incentive for governments to strive for greater --inclusion With the central objective of SSR beginning to take shape, the next challenge was to determine how to achieve this goal. Throughout the 1990s SSR programs were largely characterized by military-to-military initiatives in which western security forces worked with their counterparts in parts of the developing world, training them in the tactical skills they needed to better meet security challenges. In some cases this included providing them with the weapons and equipment to do so. However, as the 20th century drew to a close, corruption and abuse wrought by many of those same security forces clearly demonstrated that, while this sort of training is important, it is almost impossible to improve citizen security without first ensuring democratic control and oversight of the security sector.

A variety of tools were developed to achieve this control: training parliamentarians on effective defense budget management, educating officers and soldiers in international law and human rights norms, and downsizing militaries in favor of police forces and gendarmeries. Additionally, in the late 1990s many began to note that in order to have true transformation of the security sector, SSR programs needed to become more “locally-owned” with a focus on the development of national security strategies that included broad participation of all aspects of society, from the security sector to the government to the civil society10. In the early years of the 21st century, local participation in SSR has improved as civilian agencies, rather than militaries, have increasingly taken the lead in SSR programs. However, many scholars continue to note that inadequate participation of local populations or organizations is a weakness in most SSR programs. As Wilson and Martin explain¸“Many SSR practitioners work with members of the local elite to implement their plans, which can produce results which are pleasing to the liberal preferences of donors, in local structures.”11 Without inclusion in SSR and the ongoing security management process, citizens are unable to develop a thorough understanding of security management and SSR to be able to effectively hold their leaders accountable. As a result, building on Partners’ many years of experience developing the capacity of civil society organizations to play advocacy roles, Partners sought to fill this gap by making citizens engagement a cornerstone of this Mano River project.

Ball, Nicole. (2010). “The Evolution of the SSR Agenda.” Taken from “The Future of Security Sector Reform,” Mark Sedra (ed.). Center for International Governance Innovation. 10 See, for example: Donais, Timothy (ed.). (2008). “Local Ownership and Security Sector Reform. Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF). 11 Martin, Alex and Peter Wilson. (2008). “Security Sector Evolution: Which Locals? Ownership of What?” From “Local Ownership and SSR,” Timothy Donais (ed.).Geneva Cantre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF). 9

FINDINGS FROM PRESENTATIONS AND DICUSSIONS 2

On the first day, Ely Dieng, the Chief of the SSR Division at UNOCI, spoke about Citizen Engagement in SSR. Ely Dieng, the Chief of the SSR Division at United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire (UNOCI), spoke about Engaging Citizens to Improve Security during the second plenary session. Of the money spent on SSR in countries in the region, Dieng noted, 72% has been spent directly on the overhaul of the security sectors, while only 7% was spent on “softer” aspects of reform such as civil engagement, according to a UN Peace Building Support Office review of SSR spending in Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia.12 As a result, security forces are presumably becoming more well-trained and better equipped, but they are not learning to put their new skills to use to benefit the populations they are meant to serve.

Mr. Dieng concurred with contemporary academic thought, arguing that the goal of SSR should be the promotion of enhanced human security. He drew on the UN’s definition of human security, describing it in its broadest sense as “freedom from fear and want.” He further explained that achieving this goal means going beyond the adaptation or restructuring of legal frameworks, an approach that has historically characterized most SSR programs. Instead, a holistic transformation must be undertaken involving all sectors of society, with an emphasis on women and youth being integrated into the process.

Fitz-Gerald, Ann M. (2012). “Thematic Review of Security Sector Reform (SSR) and Peacebuilding.” United Nations Peacebuilding Support Office. 12

Partners for Democratic Change

A key reason civil society tends to be left out of SSR programs is a general lack of understanding of the role it might play. When it comes to security officials, ministers, or parliamentarians, the changes they must make and their responsibilities in the reform process are relatively clear; civil society’s role is much more ambiguous. Civil society, Mr. Dieng explained, is needed to monitor the development and implementation of SSR policies. This includes working with security officials and policy-makers to ensure that they are well informed of the needs of the various constituencies the civil society groups represent. As the capacity of these organizations to work on technical SSR issues improves, they can provide training and expert insight to members of parliament and other stakeholders.

Civil society's potential role in SSR ¬ Inform decision-makers about key security issues facing citizens ¬ Monitor the reform process, ensure follow through and --implementation of policies ¬ Provide voice to under-represented populations such as women, --children, and minorities ¬ Engagement in community policing Of course, achieving greater engagement with civil society will require more than simply describing the various roles it might play. In many cases, the active unwillingness of those in control of the process to work with civil society is also a real challenge. This is particularly the case in countries where outbreaks of conflict have resulted in a deep distrust between members of government, the security sector, and civil society, such as those in the Mano River region. Discussions during the event presented a unique opportunity for civil society, government, and security representatives to share their perspectives on the role civil society might play in reform in the Mano River region. While the civil society

participants already saw a role for themselves in the security realm, government and security officials had less exposure to the concept and had divergent ideas of what that role should be. Thus, this discussion centered on best practices achieved in each of the Mano River countries to date, followed by collective recommendations for the future. The discussion on best practices revealed the diversity of experiences countries have had with citizen engagement. In Liberia, civil society has been involved to some degree since 2006 in the national working group on SSR. In Sierra Leone, CSOs have been involved in that county’s effort at decentralization of security management. Across the countries, the general population’s lack of information on the SSR process has been a particular vulnerability and a point of entry for civil society. CSOs have been involved in sensitization programs, radio shows, and other measures to better disseminate information about the steps being taken by the civilian and uniformed leadership. While citizen engagement has long been a cornerstone of literature on SSR, its realization in practice is often still a new and contentious idea. Security matters have long been understood as the sole purview of the state, so it was heartening to see a high level of enthusiasm amongst participants from each of the sectors about the concept. A common theme during the discussion groups was that SSR efforts had been owned only by the upper level leadership for too long. The population’s lack of involvement in the process has left them uninformed and their interests unrepresented. The exclusion of women and women’s organizations from security reform and management has been especially troubling. The security sectors in MRU member states remain heavily male-dominated and women have often been the main victims of abuses, so SSR programs need to make a concerted effort to ensure more women are included in the reform process.

Discussions on improving citizen engagement led to the proposal of several recommendations:

Reccomendations ÂŹ Create or support regional mechanisms for facilitating dialogue between civil society and the security sector on SSR and human security issues. ÂŹ Enhance public awareness of reforms through radio shows, community meetings, movies, and the use of existing forums like workers associations. ÂŹ Develop a barometer that those in civil society can easily use to measure the progress of SSR and the accountability of security forces

Participants showcased their work at an evening event during the Monrovia Symposium.

Partners for Democratic Change

Decentralization as a Means of Improving National Security CONTEXT

In recent years, programs aimed at governance reform have increasingly focused on developing decentralized structures to promote more stable governments, as well as governments that are less heavily focused on urban population centers to the neglect of rural areas. The argument behind greater decentralization often rests on two general principles:

Overview ÂŹ 1 The closer proximity of decision-makers to the communities that their decisions ultimately affect is likely to make them behave with greater accountability. ÂŹ 2 The flexibility afforded by decentralized forms of government allows them to be more specialized in the challenges faced by a given community. During a program sponsored by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) that began in 2011, Partners and Partners Senegal saw considerable evidence for the importance of decentralization in terms of security, particularly with regard to this second argument. The program, known as the Guinea Citizen Security Project (GCSP), sought to enhance citizen security by training local government officials and civil society leaders on the concepts of human security and SSR. In three of Guineaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s four distinct geographical regions,

Partners Senegal, with support from Partners, conducted trainings and facilitated discussions to help these leaders identify and prioritize the key security concerns facing their communities. The lists of challenges produced in each region highlighted the variable nature of security in Guinea. In the forest region, for example, people were highly concerned with environmental issues that might threaten the well-being of the forest on which they were so highly dependent. In Lower Guinea, on the other hand, personal security threats as a result of urbanization were of great concern. Upper Guinea is often faced with food insecurity. Decentralizing security management would help security forces develop the necessary flexibility to respond to this diversity of challenges.

Chief Zanzan Karwor of Liberia was given the floor during both the opening and closing ceremonies, during which he highlighted the need for a more citizen-centric approach to security, particularly in rural regions.

FINDINGS FROM PRESENTATIONS AND 3 DICUSSIONS

Day two kicked off with a discussion of the decentralization of security with Mathurin Houngnikpo from the Africa Center for Stategic Studies If citizen engagement can be thought of as a “deepening” of security management, decentralization can be thought of as a “widening.” As speaker Dr. Mathurin Houngnikpo of the Africa Center for Strategic Studies (ACSS) explained, security challenges differ from the capital city to the outer regions, so their management should be similarly varied. However, discussion during the event was marked by strong debate, with historical differences from country to country reverberating throughout the breakout rooms and challenging the viability of such policies.

experiences and initiatives. Those from Côte d’Ivoire and Guinea were more skeptical, however. This can perhaps be traced to the security structures in these countries, with the French colonial power leaving behind a highly centralized set of governance and security mechanisms in the latter two countries similar to those preferred by France itself.

As a result, many of the Guinean and Ivorian participants expressed concern that decentralization of security could lead to a loss of control by the state as factions develop within the security Sierra Leone’s focus on decentralization as a fun- forces. Continued discussion with those from Sidamental component of its SSR program over the erra Leone, however, seemed to win over the minds past decade is an approach the Liberian partici- of many. The Sierra Leoneans argued that safeguards need to be put in place to protect against pants were eager to compare to their own recent

Partners for Democratic Change

such a situation developing, but that continuing to plenary hall during both the opening and closing ignore the need for decentralization would only re- ceremonies, he underscored the necessity of govinforce other equally significant threats to security. ernment and security actors working directly with As discussion continued, Guinean and Ivorian communities and their traditional leadership in participants were particularly impressed with the order to effectively address challenges facing the decentralized model of the MRU’s confidence population. Traditional leaders and other nonbuilding units (CBUs). The CBUs work to improve state actors must be actively engaged in the secusecurity in the border regions shared by the four rity reform process. countries by providing a forum in which government, security, and civil society leaders on each side of the border can come together to discuss issues, minimizing the opportunity for misunderstandings that can lead to cross-border tensions. Further, these CBUs help communities on both sides to develop collaborative strategies for improving security in the region. Many participants were unaware of these initiatives prior to the conference and wished that information on such initiatives would be made more accessible. Greater awareness of these would increase the likelihood of replication and cross-border collaborations. By the end, Guinean participants expressed a desire to see CBUs become operational in more villages and saw in them the potential for more effective management of information on security issues at the border. This recognition within the Guinean delegation illustrates an important shift in their perspective regarding decentralization.

Further recommendations during this session focused on the need for better methods of communication. As security management becomes more dispersed and more actors, including nonstate actors, are increasingly involved, effective communication becomes even more essential. Improving communication means:

Reccomendations ¬ Improving dissemination of information on reform efforts, such as on meetings of CBUs, meetings of the Peace and Security Commission of the MRU, or models of security decentralization ¬ More intra-state and international dialogue groups like those begun by the MRU ¬ Enhancement of basic communications infrastructure: Outside the capital regions, telephone and Internet service, and even a lack of well-maintained roads, make consistent communication difficult

The turning point in the discussions was the realization that, even if the state would like to, central governments in this region simply do not have the capacity to adequately provide security across their entire territory. If they have accepted improved human security as their goal, it is clear that a greater devolution of authority and more involvement of populations in their own security are necessary. Chief Zanzan Karwor, head of the Traditional Leadership Council of Liberia addressed this issue during two of the interventions he made during the event. Speaking from the front of the

Resource Mobilization for Security Reform and Management CONTEXT

The four countries of the MRU are among the poorest in the world. Gross national income (GNI) per capita in the region ranges from just $330 in Liberia to $1,090 in Côte d’Ivoire, with 63.8% to 42.7% of their countries’ populations living below national poverty lines respectively.13 Against this backdrop of poverty, it becomes clear that these countries cannot be independently responsible for the high cost of complex security sector reforms.

“Ironically it seems the more support the international community provides to SSR in post-conflict countries, the more pressure is put on governments to deal with recurring costs, including fuel, maintenance, and salaries” In Liberia, for example, the US has invested more than $200 million in rebuilding the national army

alone, a figure that amounts to nearly 13% of the country’s GDP.14 When adding in the cost of police reform, judicial reform, legislative training, and all of the other activities that fall under the umbrella of SSR this number grows even further. And these figures don’t take into consideration the normal operating costs of the security sector. These countries then are faced with a Catch-22 type situation: in order to reform their security sectors they need more economic development, but in order for economic development to be sustained comprehensive SSR and improved security is a prerequisite. The solution to this dilemma, of course, has been to search for international sources of funding. As mentioned above, the US has committed millions to military reform in Liberia. In Sierra Leone, DFID has contributed nearly $150 million to security sector reform.15 France, World Bank, European Union, United Nations and others have all also committed funds to reforming the region’s security sectors.

World Bank. Data from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.PP.CD. Malan, Mark. (2008). “Security Sector Reform in Liberia: Mixed Results from Humble Beginnings.” Strategic Studies Institute, United States Army War College. http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/summary.cfm?q=855. AND World Bank. Data from: http://data.worldbank.org/country/liberia. 15 Ball, Nicole and Piet Biesheuvel, Tom Hamilton- Baillie and ‘FunmiOlanisakin. ( 2007). “Security and Justice Sector Reform Programming in Africa.” Department for International Development (DFID). Taken from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. uk/+/http://www.dfid.gov.uk/aboutdfid/performance/files/sjr.pdf 13 14

Partners for Democratic Change

While these international efforts at reform have been crucial for stability in the region, they have not come without challenges. A chief criticism of SSR programs carried out by non-domestic sources has been a lack of sustainability of the changes made after the international presence withdraws. In particular, there are significant concerns about whether recipient countries can keep up with the increased costs of their reformed security sectors. “Ironically it seems the more support the international community provides to SSR in post-conflict countries, the more pressure is put on governments to deal with recurring costs, including fuel, maintenance, and salaries,” writes Rory Keane, SSR Advisor for the UN Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) and Mark Downes, PhD, Head of the International

and Downes have suggested taking a more realistic, incremental approach might be appropriate. For local governments, increasing tax revenues, partnering with the private sector, and working more closely with civil society might offer some keys for unlocking this challenge.

Recommendations ¬ Civil society engagement ¬ Private sector investments in SSR ¬ Improved use of communication technologies ¬ Clear national security policy outlining roles, reducing overlap ¬ Working with diaspora groups ¬ Volunteerism ¬ Better monitoring and evaluation of reform programs

Security Sector Advisory Team (ISSAT). “If these recurring costs cannot be met, the SSR agenda falters, as newly recruited officers suddenly find themselves without salaries (and sometimes turn to criminal activities as a result), newly purchasedland cruisers seize up due to lack of gas, and new barracks fall into disrepair without funding for maintenance.”16 Resource constraints are thus among the most significant challenges facing reform programs and general security management in the Mano River region. Whether it is the weakness of the domestic economy, the limited ability of governments to raise their own revenue, the questionable stability of reforms after internationals have left, or a reduction in the international aid available in the first place as a result of the current global economic downturn solving the challenge of how to pay for reforms is critical. Addressing this means searching this for creative solutions. For the internationals, Keane

Keane, Rory and Mark Downes, PhD. (2012). “Security Sector Reform Applied: Nine Ways to Move from Policy to Implementation.” International Peace Institute. 16

FINDINGS FROM PRESENTATIONS AND DICUSSIONS 4

Colonel Birame Diop, Director of Partners Senegal, presented on the need to search for creative solutions for funding SSR as well as long-term security management SSR needs investment in order to be successful. Large scale reforms that are often necessary can be expensive, so their implementation is a burden on the budgets of post-conflict countries in which reforms are generally the most needed. Furthermore, donor nations are often hesitant to contribute financially to activities that can be seen as benefitting foreign militaries, especially if these militaries have a history of abuse or misconduct. It is for this reason and against the broader backdrop of research on defense economicsthat Col. BirameDiop provided the final presentation of the event, focusing on Resource Mobilization for SSR and longterm security management. The countries of the Mano River region are some of the poorest in the world. Underdevelopment,

Partners for Democratic Change

corruption, and an international community that is at times hesitant to support SSR programming combine to create a formidable challenge for improving security in the region. In spite of these challenges, ways can be found to fund reform. There is a need for solutions that creatively mobilize all the available resources in a country towards the SSR effort. One solution is to simply improve the efficiency and effectiveness with which currently available resources are put to work. One way to do this is for SSR programs to engage CSOs with direct access to the populations throughout the country to help. This helps to ensure that each change is felt as widely as possible, amplifying the impact of each dollar spent. Furthermore, the more citizens are

informed about the ways in which state spending are improving their lives, the more likely they will be to contribute taxes to the effort. In addition to raising awareness, integrating civil society into the security reform and management process improves information-sharing and intelligence-gathering. Furthermore, community policing programs could help reduce the security threats a country is facing, reducing some of the burden facing reforming security institutions. Of course, there may be a limit to what creative, collaborative solutions can achieve, and at some point countries simply need to commit the necessary financial resources to successfully carry out reforms. Countries need to become more effective at demonstrating the importance of SSR to the domestic and international private sector. “Dead people don’t buy things,” as Col. Diop explained during his presentation at the symposium. Economies have a difficult time growing so long as basic security is not guaranteed; investment, either by citizens or those abroad, is unlikely to grow if the security of that investment cannot be guaranteed. Placing this in monetary terms is crucial for convincing the private sector of its interest in supporting SSR programs. As one possible consquence of failing to adequately reform the region’s security institutions, Paul Collier explains that civil war leads to a 2.2% reduction in overall growth of a country. “The average civil war lasts for around seven years (Collier and Hoeffler 2004),”17 he continues. “Thus, by the end of a civil war the economy is approximately 15% below its counterfactual level.”17 History also shows that those countries that experience civil war are highly susceptible to further violent conflicts. Forty per cent of post-conflict countries

relapse back in to civil war within a decade.18 Recognizing these costs makes clear the need to invest proactively. Participants at the event were keenly aware of this fact and many observers have noted that there seems to be a great deal of “conflict fatigue” in the region for these reasons and obviously many others. However, scarcity of financial resources is a problem that impedes reform at nearly every turn. Given the poverty of the Mano River countries, it may be surprising that there was little resistance within the discussion groups to the argument that creative domestic solutions will be necessary going forward, rather than continued reliance on international donors. Many participants agreed that taking financial ownership of security management would be a financial burden, but argued that doing so would foster greater feelings of national ownership and oversight. Participants recognized the opportunity that the private sector presents. Security is a pre-condition for carrying out business operations, and thus it is in the private sector’s interest to invest in reforms that improve security sector management. Additionally, private companies may indeed have funds to allocate to these types of initiatives and exploration of this possibility is crucial. It was also acknowledged that government and civil society will need to work in cooperation in order for private sector engagement to become a reality. Of course, the will to take over responsibility for SSR financing is very different from having the means — a reality about which participants were not naïve. Nonetheless, there is a need to ensure that available resources are used more efficiently. Among other things, this means educating members of parliament who are responsible for overseeing these

Collier, Paul and AnkeHoeffler. (2004). “The Challenge of Reducing the Global Incidence of Civil War.” Copenhagen Consensus Challenge Paper. 18 Collier, Paul, AnkeHoeffler and MånsSöderbom, (2008). Post-Conflict Risks, Journal of Peace Research 45:461-478 17

budgets but have little understanding of the tech- ¬ Decentralization can help to better manage challenges, nical aspects of funding security needs. Furtherparticularly if done so in cooperation with rural populations. This more, many participants argued, the more citizens can further help to ensure stabilization in regions with immense are engaged in the security sector reform process, natural resource reserves. Doing so can have a significant the more likely they will be to contribute the taxes impact on the overall health of the economy, if done well, and necessary to maintain the security forces. thus contribute to the funds available for reform and security management. The recommendations for improving resource mobilization reinforced findings from previous ¬ Engaging the private sector may lead them to support reforms. Investors have as much of an incentive, if not more, to see these discussions. These recommendations include: countries become stable grounds for investment. Demonstrating the direct connection between security reform and stabilization may lead them to become greater partners in reform and security Recommendations management. ¬ Creative solutions, including integrating private security ¬ Regional cooperation is necessary to pool existing resources to companies and other non-state security actors into the national tackle regional security challenges security management scheme, need to be explored.

General Lamine Cissé, Chair of the Board of Partners Senegal (Senegal, front left) and Colonel Mamadou Aliou Sow (Guinea, middle) during a plenary session.

Partners for Democratic Change

Key Findings and Recommendations

Diverse participant groups were important for well-rounded dialogue. The challenges facing security and SSR in the Mano River region are many. As a result, creative solutions that involve all levels and sectors of society are necessary for reforms to continue to progress. A key goal of the Regional Symposium was to bring the most relevant people together from civil society, government, and the uniformed security services to talk about the main challenges they are facing and search for these creative solutions.

remain necessary for years or even decades. Longterm investments in these reforms are crucial for the Mano River regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s future stability and development. In guiding this needed ongoing engagement, additional key findings include:

Key Findings

ÂŹ Diversity of SSR experiences: The countries of the MRU are emerging from diverse historical contexts and often have different Contained in this report are the seeds of many of priorities for SSR. Furthermore, within each country people from those solutions. A recurring message of the event different sectors also often have different priorities for reform and is that SSR is a long-term process. Continued eneven unique understandings of what the goals of SSR should be. gagement and persistent support for the process, both domestically and internationally, is likely to

¬ Need for regional cooperation: Despite differences from country to country, there is a clear need for cooperation at the regional level, both on SSR and on security management to tackle new security threats, many of which are regional in nature. ¬ Insufficient citizen engagement in SSR: In order for reforms to be comprehensive and sustainable there is a need to engage all aspects of society. This has long been recognized as an ideal but citizen inclusion has often been neglected as more focus has been placed on policy-level reforms. ¬ Financial resources for SSR likely to diminish: Available financial resources for SSR have historically been inadequate, in part because of the perceived political nature of SSR by donors. The recent financial crisis is likely to exacerbate this situation.

Identifying these challenges to SSR in the region helped guide the discussions during the event and led to the elevation of several key recommendations:

Parliamentarian Affoussy Bamba represented elected officials at the Symposium and shared her experiences working on SSR in Cote d’Ivoire

Recommendations ¬ Need for an SSR diagnostic tool: The diversity of priorities and conceptions of SSR, combined with the complex nature of such reforms, suggest that the development of a tool for diagnosing the progress of SSR in a particular country would be of great benefit to those engaged in the process. Such a tool would focus on the specific measures being taken to reform the security sector as well as the perceived impact of those measures on overall human security throughout the country or region. ¬ Continued strengthening of the MRU: As countries in the Mano River region are now each paying dues to the MRU Secretariat for the first time in recent history, the organization appears to be operating in a new environment of political will. Given the regional aspect of many of the threats facing the Mano River countries, continuing to strengthen the MRU’s capacity to facilitate regional security cooperation may have a significant impact on human security.

¬ Broad participation for comprehensive reform: In order for reforms to be successful in the long term, they need to be designed to effectively meet the needs of all aspects of society. This means those leading national reform programs need to deepen their engagement with citizens in order to gain a better understanding of their security needs. This needs to be done beyond simply the capital, with a decentralized approach crucial to ensure the participation of those in rural areas and particularly border regions. There is evidence that attention is increasingly being paid to this element of the reform process. At an event hosted by ACSS in Conakry Guinea in December 2012, Dr. Diéliman Kouyaté, a participant in the CESSR program and President of the Technical Commission on SSR said, “Security sector reform is not just a reform of militaries. It is not just having a good army. “It is a multi-sectoral approach to reform, to include justice, police, parliament, and civil society.” 19

Africa Center for Strategic Studies. “ACSS Guinea Chapter Hold Symposium on Security Sector Reform, Anti-Corruption Efforts.” From: http://africacenter.org/2013/01/acss-guinea-chapter-holds-symposium-on-security-sector-reform-anti-corruptionefforts/ 19

Partners for Democratic Change

ÂŹ Creation of SSR working groups within civil society: An encouraging early result of the project has been the formation by the Guinean delegation of a group to support and monitor the SSR process called the Forum of Civil Society Organizations to Support Reform (FOCAR). This encouraged other countries to establish similar groups with the support of the MRUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s assets and tools. These networks could offer CSOs a formal channel to interact with and offer recommendations to the different SSR committees. ÂŹ Creative solutions for financing reforms: A shortage of financial resources is likely to remain a challenge to SSR in the region in the near future. However, there may be some opportunities, such as more effective engagement with the private sector, which could help alleviate this shortage. Additionally, as mining and other extractive revenues continue to grow in the region, harnessing this growth and reinvesting it through the establishment of a sovereign wealth fund could provide much needed alleviation of the burden caused by the defense sector. 20 Furthermore, tapping into these resources may, in some cases, allow the local population greater autonomy from the international community with regards to SSR, leading to greater ownership over the progress of reforms.

This list of recommendations comes at an important time for the reform efforts in the Mano River region. Conflict fatigue in the region means there is a great deal of political will amongst many to see these reforms succeed. Furthermore, leaders now recognize the need to work together at the regional level to tackle political, economic, and security challenge, perhaps more than ever before. If properly taken advantage of, this environment may provide a crucial window of opportunity for reform and for strengthening regional stability and the consolidation of democracy. These recommendations, while not exhaustive, are a needed contribution to that goal.

For brief discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of such a system, see: http://africacenter.org/2012/10/ask-the-expert-africa-

center%25e2%2580%2599s-dr-assis-malaquias-discusses-angola%25e2%2580%2599s-new-5-billion-oil-fund/

About the Citizen Engagement in Security Sector Reform Project Partners for Democratic Change’s (Partners) Citizen Engagement in Security Sector Reform in the Mano River Region (CESSR) initiative was a 9-month program broadening the range of voices from civil society engaged in the security sector reform processes in the Mano River region. The program was implemented in partnership with Part-

throughout 2011 and 2012 on a project to build more effective lines of communication between law enforcement and the community in crime ridden Southside of Belize City. For 24 years Partners has been committed to providing platforms for multi-stakeholder dialogues on human security issues. This commitment will continue to be a cen-

ners’ affiliate organization in West Africa, Partners tral focus of Partners’ programming as Partners Senegal (PS), with support from the United States invests in improving citizen security in the Mano Department of State. The Partners team worked River region and around the globe. closely with representatives from civil society, government, and the security sector in each of the four countries of the Mano River region (Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone) to design a relevant and constructive program. The Citizen Engagement initiative builds on Partners’ and its’ affiliate centers’ global investment in improving citizen security by establishing processes for citizens, members of the security sector and government to come together to share experiences and form relationships that will lead to joint actions. In 2011 Partners and Partners Senegal began a two-year program known as the Guinea Citizen Security Project (GCSP) to train civil society organizations in the skills needed to more effectively participate in the Guinean security sector reform effort. In Latin America, Partners Mexico designed and facilitated a program working with a broad coalition of civil society and government actors to draft and propose legislation to improve the way security is experienced at the local level. In Belize, Partners worked with local partner RESTORE

Partners for Democratic Change

Partners Senegal

Partners Senegal - Centre for Civic Collaboration, brings together civil society (CSO) leaders, governments, academics and the private sector to promoting dialogue, transparency, good governance and youth engagement in national and local development processes. A Senegalese CSO, Partners Senegal is committed to being a leader in defessionals, Partners adapts and acculturates these veloping civil society as a credible partner in the methods to the context of each country. Through pursuit of democracy, development and the rule of our network of 18 affiliated Centers throughout law throughout West Africa. the world, Partners has contributed to the democratic and market economy transitions of these www.partners-senegal.org countries. Partners has built new professions of communications specialists, mediators, negotiators, and collaborative planners that enable civil society, private enterprises, and government at all levels to work together on issues of shared concern. Partners brings together international training teams to apply their skills and expertise around the world. Partners for Democratic Change is a global organization committed to building democratic institutions and strengthening civil society. Partners has over 20 years of experience in building local capacity in core democracy skills in over 50 countries. By working with independent national Centers, which are staffed entirely by in-country pro-

www.partnersglobal.org

Appendix A Attendee List COTE d’IVOIRE — Government

COTE d’IVOIRE — CSO

Affoussy Bamba SSR Technical Committee – Democratic Control affoussy@free.fr +225 20 20 9600

Sindou Bamba RAIDH raidhci@yahoo.fr

Alain Donwahi Chair SSR Technical Committee + 225 20 25 13 00 Gaho Dit Pierre Oulatta President National Assembly Defense and Security Commission gorguijj@yahoo.fr Outtara Seydou Prefet Ministry of Interior + 225 03 43 43 06 Fidel Yapi Ministry of Interior fidelyapi@gmail.com

Mata Coulibaly CIDDH matacoul@gmail.com Doumbia Fanta OFACI doumfanta2003@yahoo.fr Christophe Kouame CSCI kouamechristophe@gmail.com Salimata Porquet REPSFECO fefeedes@yahoo.com Wodjo Traore COSOPCI cosopci_coalition@yahoo.com

Narcisse Thomas Sepy-Yessoh Sous Prefet Ministry of Interior synarcis@yahoo.fr Zouza Roland Clovis Kalou 2nd Counselor Embassy of CdI to Liberia kalouzouzouarc@yahoo.fr +231 880 599 380

Partners for Democratic Change

GUINEA — Government

GUINEA — CSO

Cece Balamou Committee CiviloMilitaire cc.balamou@yahoo.fr

Djenabou Bah Guinean Youth Association for the Promotion of Francophonie Space djeba2003@yahoo.fr

Mariama Barry Djelo Former Parliamentarian bmdjelo@yahoo.fr +224 64 297672

Balla Dopavogui Africa Center for Strategic Studies – Guinea Chapter dopavoguiballa@yahoo.fr

Hawa Diallo Association of Guinean Magistrates hawafatou@yahoo.fr

Nantenin Kone REFMAP/MARWOPNET nanthoudomani@yahoo.fr

Zézé Dopavogui Police Ministry of Interior + 224 63413996

Moussa Nimanga CECIDE nimaga_m@yahoo.fr

Dieliman Kouyate Political Advisor Ministry of Defense + 224 63117207 Mamadou Aliou Sow SSR Technical Committee aliouemia@yahoo.fr

Hadja Sayon Samoura Association for Military Spouses hadjasayon56@yahoo.fr HamidouToure CONAG louja_gn@yahoo.fr

LIBERIA — Government

LIBERIA — CSO

Robert Cooper Assistant Deputy Minister of Operations Ministry of National Defense brixoct17@yahoo.com

Cyril Allen Resident Coordinator - Liberia Mano River Union afamefuna14@yahoo.com +231 886 448 523

Frederick Gbemie Security Sector Reform Coordinator National Security Council frederick.gbemie@gmail.com

Ruth Caesar MARWOPNET ruth1847@yahoo.com

Jerome Larblee Deputy Minister Ministry of National Defense jlmafiaso@yahoo.com

Roosevelt Gould II Director Catholic Justice & Peace Commission rogould2@yahoo.com

Fredie Taylor Deputy Minister of Administration – Public Safety Ministry of Justice fredier2001@yahoo.com +231 886 510 913

Cecil Griffiths Director LINLEA cbgriffiths@yahoo.com

Abla Williams Bureau of Immigration ablagw@hotmail.com Jonathan Wordsworth Ministry of Internal Affairs projaw@yahoo.com +231 886 742632 Joseph Yarsiah Transitional Justice Working Group rightsrice@googlemail

Nyenti Kaffey Community Watch Association cwfliberia2010@yahoo.com Chief Karwor National Traditional Council C/O Carter Center chelsea.payne@cartercenterliberia.org Francis Nagbe Program Manager WANEP - Liberia nagbe_f@yahoo.com Debey Sayndee Director Kofi Annan Institute for Conflict Transformation peacebuilderlr@gmail.com +231- 886513677 / +231- 777513677 Jimmy Smith Private Security Guard Association jwsmith410@msn.com

Partners for Democratic Change

LIBERIA — CSO (continued)

SIERRA LEONE — CSO

Zuo Taylor Youth Crime Watch zuotaylor@gmail.com

Henry Allieu Youth NGO henryallieu@yahoo.com

Una Thompson WOLPNET unatunky@yahoo.com

Angui Assouakon MRU Secretariat mrurci@yahoo.com

Aaron Weah Governance Commission abweah.ci@gmail.com

Hassan Feika Peace and Reconciliation Movement – SL hhassan_2006@yahoo.com

SIERRA LEONE — Government

Hannah Garrick MARWOPNET/REFMAP garrhann2000@yahoo.com

Ismail Tarawali Office of National Security ishtee2009@yahoo.com Olayinka Phillips Ministry of Justice yinkaphillips10@yahoo.com Francis Keili Office of National Security flkeili@yahoo.com Memunatu Konteh Police mbkontehbangura@yahoo.com

RESOURCE PARTICIPANTS Augustine Allieu Plan International – Sierra Leone augustine.allieu@plan-international.org

James Ruffing US Embassy – Sierra Leone RuffingJR@state.gov

Gene Bonventre USAID/Africa Bureau ebonventre@usaid.gov

Francois Traore USAID – Guinea ftraore@usaid.gov

Gregory Blamoh Plan International – Liberia Gregory.Blamoh@plan-international.org

Jason Wright US Embassy – Liberia WrightJP2@state.gov

Todd Coker US Department of State – Cote d’Ivoire cokert@state.gov

SPEAKERS

Massa Crayton OSIWA Liberia mcrayton@osiwa.org

Lamine Cisse Board Chair Partners Senegal laminecisse0039@yahoo.fr

Abdoul Rahamane Diallo OSIWA Guinea adiallo@osiwa.org Nancy Estes USAID – Guinea/Sierra Leone nlestes@usaid.gov Abdulai Jalloh USAID – Sierra Leone ajalloh@usaid.gov

Ely Dieng SSR Chief UNOCI dieng6@un.org Birame Diop Director Partners Senegal bdiop@partnersglobal.org

Missak Kasongo CEEC missakkas@yahoo.fr Megan Price Clingendael mprice@clingendael.nl Sue Ann Sandusky US Embassy – Liberia sanduskysa@state.gov

Partners for Democratic Change

FACILITATORS

PARTNERS for DEMOCRATIC CHANGE

Oury Traore Mali/Ghana ourytraore@yahoo.com

Teresa Crawford Director tcrawford@partnersglobal.org

Emile Ouedrago Burkina Faso lambila2002@hotmail.com

Nick Oatley Chief Operating Officer noatley@partnersglobal.org

Mathurin Houngnikpo Washington, D.C. houngnikpom@ndu.edu

Hugh Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Donnell Associate hodonnell@partnersglobal.org

Fatoumata Sira Diallo Guinea/DRC fsdiallo@yahoo.fr

Appendix B Agenda

TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 18th

19:00 - 21:00

Welcome Reception at Golden Gate Hotel Shuttle from Kendeja to Golden Gate — 8:45

WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 19th

07:30 - 08:30

Breakfast at Respective Hotels Shuttle from Kendeja Hotel to Golden Gate Hotel

09:00 - 10:00

Opening Welcome Speakers — Col. Birame Diop, Director — Partners Senegal Teresa Crawford, Director — Partners for Democratic Change General Lamine Cisse, Board Chair — Partners Senegal, Col. Sue Ann Sandusky, Senior Defense Official — United States St. Jerome Larbalee, Deputy Defense Minister — Government of Liberia

10:00 - 10:30

Coffee Break Group Photo — location TBD

10:30 - 11:30

Mano River Regional Security — Challenges & Opportunities Keynote Speakers — Dr. Saran Daraba, Secretary General — Mano River Union

Moderator — Col. BirameDiop, Director — Partners Senegal

Partners for Democratic Change

11:30 - 13:00

Breakout Discussion #1 — Regional Threats/Challenges/Opportunities

13:00 - 14:30

Buffet Lunch

14:30 - 16:00

Plenary Session — Citizen Engagement in Security

Breakout #1 Room - Maryland Facilitator - Matt

Breakout #2 Room - Grand Bassa Facilitator - Emile

Breakout #3 Room - Bong Facilitator - Oury

Breakout #4 Room - Grand Gedeh Facilitator - Fatoumata

Speakers — Ely Dieng, Chief SSR Officer — UNOCI

Moderator — Emile Ouedraogo

16:00 - 16:30

Coffee Break

16:30 - 18:00

Breakout Discussion #2 — Citizen Engagement in Security

18:00 - 19:30

Free Time Shuttle to Kendeja — 18:15/18:30 Shuttle to Golden Gate — 19:15/19:30

19:30 - 21:00

National Dress Dinner Shuttle to Kendeja Hotel from Golden Gate Hotel — 21:00/21:15

Breakout #1 Room - Maryland Facilitator - Matt

Breakout #2 Room - Grand Bassa Facilitator - Emile

Breakout #3 Room - Bong Facilitator - Oury

Breakout #4 Room - Grand Gedeh Facilitator - Fatoumata

THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 20th

19:00 - 21:00

Breakfast at Respective Hotels Shuttle from Kendeja Hotel to Golden Gate Hotel — 8:15

10:30 - 11:30

Plenary Session — Decentralization as a Pillar of National Security Speakers — Dr. Mathurin Houngnikpo, Academic Chair of Civil-Military Relations — Africa Center for Strategic Studies, National Defense University

Moderator — Oury Traore

10:00 - 10:30

Coffee Break

10:30 - 12:00

Breakout Discussion #3 — Decentralization as a Pillar of National Security

12:00 - 13:30

Buffet Lunch

13:30 - 15:00

Plenary Session — Resource Mobilization for Reforms Speakers —

Breakout #1 Room - Maryland Facilitator - Matt

Breakout #2 Room - Grand Bassa Facilitator - Emile

Breakout #3 Room - Bong Facilitator - Oury

Breakout #4 Room - Grand Gedeh Facilitator - Fatoumata

Col. Birame Diop, Director — Partners Senegal

Moderator —

Fatoumata Diallo

Partners for Democratic Change

15:00 - 15:30

Coffee Break

15:30 - 17:00

Breakout Discussion #4 — Resource Mobilization

17:00 - 18:00

Closing Discussion and Remarks

Breakout #1 Room – Maryland Facilitator - Matt

Breakout #2 Room – Grand Bassa Facilitator – Emile

Breakout #3 Room – Bong Facilitator – Oury

Breakout #4 Room – Grand Gedeh Facilitator - Fatoumata

Speakers — Nancy Estes, Mission Director — Guinea/Sierra Leone — USAID Col. Birame Diop, Director — Partners Senegal Teresa Crawford, Director — Partners for Democratic Change General Lamine Cisse, Board Chair — Partners Senegal

Moderator —

Mathurin Houngnikpo

18:30 - 20:30

Closing Reception Shuttle from Kendeja Hotel to Golden Gate Hotel — 20:30/20:45