Global Facilitation Network for Security Sector Reform (GFN-SSR)

Developing integrated approaches to post-conflict security and recovery: A case study of integrated DDR in Sudan

 Printable version

How have integrated approaches to disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) been applied in the case of Sudan? Despite significant recent progress, DDR in Sudan cannot be described as a total success. This Saferworld report reviews the design and implementation of the first phase of DDR programming in Sudan from 2005 until the end of 2007. Much further thought and practical guidance is required on DDR if further programmes are to demonstrate more positive results.

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between the North and South established the foundation for DDR in Sudan, from which an ‘Interim DDR Programme’ (IDDRP) was designed and agreed upon. Supported by the United Nations (UN) and international partners, the IDDRP utilised new principles for integrated approaches to DDR programme design, management and implementation that were heavily influenced by the development of the UN Integrated DDR Standards (IDDRS).

The DDR process in Sudan is widely regarded to have delivered limited results after over two years of implementation. DDR efforts in Sudan highlight the challenges experienced when putting integrated DDR and post-conflict security programmes into practice.

• Challenges have included managing the difficulties of national ownership and designing a programme that fits with complex contextual realities.
• Inconsistent engagement between the parties and by international partners in the process at the highest political levels has meant that political risks have not always been adequately managed.
• The initial challenges of management cohesion within the supporting integrated UNDDR Unit and basic inter-operability issues between the UN agencies involved in the Unit also contributed to difficulties in implementing the programme.
• Despite the heavy emphasis on integration, opportunities for coordinating DDR and wider security sector programming have until recently been largely missed, with the result that different security and justice sector processes have impacted upon one another in unforeseen and sometimes negative ways.

Ultimately, further analysis and practical guidance are required if integration and coordination of future DDR and post-war security responses are to demonstrate more positive results. Those involved in the design and implementation of post-conflict security building policies and programmes are advised that:

• direct and consistent high-level international engagement with involved parties should be sustained following agreement on programme goals and direction;
• programming should take the context as the starting point and then match this with appropriate programmatic responses;
• national and UN structures should take steps to ensure mechanisms exist to manage the risk and impact of changes in the political and security context;
• practical guidance on alternative institutional arrangements for DDR and post-conflict security provision, that reflect different contextual realities while still achieving the objective of national ownership, should be further developed;
• national and international partners should ensure that genuine partnership arrangements are negotiated where both sides are jointly involved in strategic decision-making and are jointly accountable to one another; and
• international post-conflict security policy-makers and practitioners could explore more flexible ways in which to develop sequenced and coordinated approaches to addressing inter-related issues affecting post-war security as a whole.

Access full text