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

The Future of Security Sector Reform

 Printable version

Whilst a normative framework for security sector reform (SSR) has been well established, it has not been fully applied in practice and translated into effective programming. This report, published by the Center for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), summarises the main findings of an e-Conference discussion of unresolved SSR challenges. A new SSR research agenda needs to be launched in order to create an implementation framework more attuned to contemporary issues and challenges.

There is an abundance of analysis of the SSR experience of the past decade. However, it has yet to stimulate the innovations that are necessary to make SSR more effective in different contexts. Many challenges facing SSR have yet to be resolved, including issues such as local ownership, strategy design and involvement of non-state actors in reform processes.

CIGI and Governance Village sponsored an e-Conference on the future of SSR in May 2009. The goal was to review the evolution of SSR, identify successes, failures and challenges and contemplate its future. Over 300 policy makers, practitioners and analysts from over 50 countries participated in the dialogue.

Local SSR ownership could be enhanced by acknowledging that there are both “SSR activities” directed by local actors and “SSR assistance” provided by external actors. Other e-Conference findings include:

• All actors should recognise SSR as a long-term process that should be measured in decades rather than one- to five-year programming cycles. Strategies should be flexible, adaptable and reflect local circumstances.
• Donors measure progress by relying on superficial numerical indicators that can be misleading and deliver false positives. Measurements need to be innovative and informed by good baseline data and analysis.
• Regional organisations can play a key SSR role in coordination and joint concept development. Some reforms need to be implemented across borders.
• Whilst non-state actors often provide societal links to SSR, many violate human rights principles. Donors need to develop more nuanced ways to deal with them.
• Donors often create fiscally unsustainable SSR structures that can result in long-term external dependencies. Whether SSR programmes should be needs- or sustainability-driven depends on reform context and the durability of donor commitment. 
• Increased SSR outsourcing to private security companies has generated the need for clearer mandates and more oversight. Increased SSR use of private sector actors such as business communities and civil society would enhance local ownership. 

While the first decade of SSR witnessed the rapid development of the SSR normative framework, implementation did not keep pace. Narrowing the gap between policy and practice should be the centrepiece of the next generation of SSR and include:

• A new SSR model that is more attuned to specific implementation challenges of contemporary SSR contexts;
• Fostering greater unity or purpose and vision among principal global stakeholders that results in more coherent, coordinated and complementary donor SSR policies; and
• A new and invigorated research agenda that draws on the SSR experience to produce new policy and programming strategies and practices.

Access full text