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

Security for Whom? SSR and Public Security in Nepal

 Printable version

What are the priorities in terms of security in Nepal? What contribution can the European Union (EU) make towards building and maintaining peace in the country? This briefing from International Alert examines security sector reform (SSR) and public security in Nepal. It argues that there is an urgent need to address security provision and the security sector as part of Nepal’s ongoing peace process.

Nepal’s peace process is fragile and levels of insecurity remain high. SSR and public security initiatives planned in tandem are key to improving the security situation in Nepal. However, given the sensitivity of SSR, thought needs to be given to how to lay the groundwork for SSR under the banner of public security. If something is not done to address the current public security situation, longer-term SSR initiatives will be jeopardised. The EU can play a significant role in developing and sustaining a human security approach that addresses public security in the context of long-term SSR.

Any SSR process must take into account a wide range of security actors in Nepal including both state providers and traditional and community-level organisations. SSR processes will need to assess the roles of security service providers including the army, the armed police force, the police and political youth wings. With regard to SSR and public security in Nepal:

• Discussions about SSR are in their infancy and progress is hampered by political manoeuvring and disagreements over the People's Liberation Army (PLA) integration into the Nepal Army.
• Little consideration has been given to how SSR will take into account local-level realities and wider public security needs.
• Public security appears to be deteriorating. The perceived lack of attention to this is having a negative effect on public faith in the government and the peace process.
• The Nepal Police lack the necessary capacity and resources and do not have the full trust of the population. Community mechanisms remain the first recourse for the majority of the population.
• Public security is threatened by a significant minority of youth who feel, and often are, excluded from the political process.

• support the development of a realistic system for local consultation on security issues and build the will and capacity of stakeholders to engage in consultation;
• develop increased understanding of local dispute resolution mechanisms and community organisations in order to establish how they could be supported and/or support local peace councils;
• support information sharing between Kathmandu and districts and establish a public security forum to develop a common understanding of public security and SSR issues;
• consider how aid can impact on local security and link public security priorities to ensuring that youth play a positive role in political discussions;
• support the development of capacity within the Ministry of Peace and Reconstruction to implement Nepal Peace Trust Fund (NPTF) priorities; and
• balance support to the NPTF with support to initiatives addressing wider public security challenges.

Access full text