Secretariat of the Knowledge Platform Security & Rule of Law

Test knop

About Secretariat of the Knowledge Platform Security & Rule of Law

Test

News > ...

Going with the flow: migration and stability in Northern Africa and the Sahel

14.11.2016

Migratory flows within the Northern and Western Africa, as well as between Africa and Europe, have become a top priority for policymakers both in The Netherlands and abroad. On 1 November, the Platform Secretariat organized an Interactive Brainstorm exploring how migration management programs can respond effectively to the realities of migration and human smuggling and trafficking on the ground in Northern Africa and the Sahel region.

In surveying how migratory flows are currently affecting countries like Libya, Mali and Niger, a number of dilemmas for migration management policies are apparent. First, the majority of trans-region migration is intra-regional, rather than directed towards Europe. Second, evidence suggests that investment in border control drives the smuggling industries in the region. Third, criminal smuggling networks, and the proceeds generated through their operations, are sometimes substantially embedded in local and national politics.

What are the drivers of these migration flows? Overarching megatrends, such as climate change and irregular rain, push farmers out of the Sahel and elsewhere towards traditionally richer societies such as Libya. Additionally, violent conflict at home and, particularly, the lack of economic opportunities and a bleak future remain important drivers.

Migration and smuggling as development and empowerment

A key difficulty identified during the meeting was the substantial contribution to local and national economies generated through migrant smuggling. Migration is not only a protection strategy, but also a development strategy. Hotels, car mechanics, bus operators and other commercial businesses earn from migrants passing through. Simultaneously, security forces rely on revenue extracted from migrants at roadblocks and elsewhere to supplement their incomes. These practices are often institutional, rather than incidental: in one city a mayoral decree regulated distribution of profits from migration.

The challenge in managing migration is how to replace the income generated through smuggling. Smuggling is a tool for empowerment and financial gain in Libya, Mali and Niger. Without sustainable alternatives, particularly for youth, smuggling practices will continue, and securitized migration policies may only exacerbate the abuses that migrants suffer.

At a superficial level, actors in the smuggling economy want quick money. At a deeper level, however, smuggling networks are entrenched in the political economies in which they operate. Communities engage in smuggling as livelihood protection to cope in a tumultuous environment and social empowerment, for marginalized communities to reposition themselves in their societies.

Particularly in Libya, the smuggling economy is the glue that holds together much of the fragmented Libyan society. Indeed, violence between armed groups rarely affects the viability and continuity of smuggling routes – business comes first.

Migration and smuggling often provide a degree of stability in the region. The aforementioned smuggling economy provides jobs that prevent youth from being tempted by armed groups and terrorist organizations. Furthermore, for communities that rely on smuggling as an opportunity for empowerment, rooting out this trade could have devastating effects.

Lack of reliable data

The discussion accentuated the difficulty in collecting current and reliable data on almost all aspects of migration. Despite data collection from a number of NGOs, CSOs and others, it is nearly impossible to bring all this data together. There is a need for coordination between these actors to fill knowledge gaps that are crucial to seeing the whole picture in the region.

How can we move forward?

The discussion presented a number of takeaways that can inform how to enhance migration management strategies given the realities for migrants in these areas. First, the security approach to addressing migration, without taking into account the developmental and political aspects of the smuggling economy, will not work. Comprehensive strategies that simultaneously try to limit migratory flows and foster economic opportunities, both for migrants at home and for those living along migratory routes, may help to incrementally reduce the flows.

Second, it is absolutely essential for all actors to understand that stemming migratory flows entirely is nearly impossible. The inability of some actors to accept that migrants will almost always continue to move, particularly from countries where they lack opportunities, hinders the development of both effective and compassionate policies.

Third, there is a need to identify credible actors at all levels and at every points along migratory routes in order to better understand needs in each community and to develop sustainable policies that have supporting and implementing partners on the ground. These partnerships will also help to gain a more nuanced understanding of the issues the migrants, smugglers, bureaucrats, security forces and other actors must deal with. Part of this identification is also the ability to understand the way in which these actors themselves are part and parcel of the smuggling economies in their regions.

Finally, the human rights dimension of all policies and programs aiming to manage migration must be a priority. The abuses migrants suffer on their journeys and in arriving at their destination only serve to encourage onwards migration. Particularly in Libya, violations of human rights mean increased migratory flows to Europe. EU programs must continually assess the human rights impact of the policies adopted.

 

09 Nov

Adaptive programming in strategic partnerships

Organized by:Secretariat of the Knowledge Platform Security & Rule of Law

Read the summary report of this meeting here.

The Platform and NIMD will host a lunch meeting on adaptive programming in strategic partnerships.

The Strategic Partnerships are a step forward in terms of enabling parameters that are needed for adaptive programming. However, even within this new framework of cooperation, tension exists (e.g. the IATI guidelines, that are not adaptive). (How) can the SP’s be improved in terms of adaptive programming?

The meeting is part of a series of lunch meeting on adaptive programming, hosted together with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, NIMD and PAX.

This lunch meeting is by invitation only.

Sophialaan 10, 2514 JR, ,
02 Nov

Result measurement in adaptive programming

Organized by:Secretariat of the Knowledge Platform Security & Rule of Law

Read the summary report of this meeting here.

The Platform and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will host a lunch meeting on result measurement in adaptive programming . 

This first meeting of a series on adaptive programming will focus on discussing participants’ experiences with and knowledge of result measurement with a specific focus on adaptive programming. The meeting aims for an open and constructively critical dialogue on quantitative versus qualitative result measurement, the tension between accountability and learning, and how these can be improved to make more flexible security and rule of law programming happen.

The meeting is part of a series of lunch meetings on adaptive programming, hosted together with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, NIMD and PAX.

This lunch meeting is by invitation only.

, , ,
01 Nov

Going with the Flow: Addressing migration and stability in Northern Africa and the Sahel

Organized by:Secretariat of the Knowledge Platform Security & Rule of Law

Read a blog by Nissrine Majdi here.

This Interactive Brainstorm explores how programs developed to control and regulate mass popular movements by responding to the causes, dynamics, and consequences of migration and displacement can be designed in a manner that is conflict-sensitive and aware of existing power structures.

By highlighting how current migration flows in North Africa and the Sahel feed elitist governing agreements and contribute to livelihood provision and protection strategies, the day will draw attention to the interaction between migration and the empirical manifestation of political (dis)order in North African and Sahel countries. A solid understanding of these dynamics is required to develop policies that do least harm in a region that is already very complex to begin with.

To achieve this, this daylong workshop brings together experts from diverse backgrounds for an open-minded exploration of the interplay between migration and political (in)stability. The goal is to:

  1. Reach a shared understanding of the systemic connections between migration flows and resources, local and national elite governance agreements, and livelihood provision and protection strategies;
  2. Discuss current and future programs that aim to control and regulate mass migration movements, and assess how these take into account such systemic connections; and
  3. Discuss novel, out-of-the-box, policy solutions departing from a shared understanding of the socio-political role of migration in the region. 

For more information on the event, please contact Steven Lanting of the Platform Secretariat.

, , ,
News > ...

Libya in Turmoil: Implications for international support?

31.10.2016

Libya is a state in turmoil. Many dimensions of the current situation in Libya pose challenges to its further stability and problematize the ability of internal and external actors to intervene effectively. To this end, the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Platform organized an expert meeting on 4 October. Bringing together a diverse group of experienced practitioners working in and policymakers working on Libya, the event aimed to explore the implications of the current state of affairs for ongoing and future security sector reform efforts by the European Union and the Netherlands more specifically.

The meeting began with a surveying of the current situation in Libya, taking in the effects of migration and related criminality, the activities and competing interests of the militias currently active throughout the country, and Libya’s political dynamics, particularly the legitimacy and acceptance of the Government of National Accord (GNA).

Migration

It was noted that Libya is and always has been a destination country for migrants. Millions of economic migrants from all corners of the African continent see Libya as an endpoint in their journeys. However, the deteriorating safety situation in the country, exacerbated by rampant human rights violations, violence and the rise of ISIS - who have taken to targeting migrants - have shortened the transit time and encouraged onward migration over the dangerous Mediterranean Sea path.

Recent developments, particularly legislation criminalizing immigration and the increased involvement of criminal gangs in the smuggling economy, may exacerbate the conditions fueling migration. Many migrants arrested in Libya, as well as those turned back by the coast guard at sea, are brought to detention centers characterized primarily by conditions that migrants attempted to escape from in the first place. Ensuring that policies and program that stem migration do not cause further harm, particularly violations of basic human rights and dignities, should be a central concern for all external actors in Libya.

Economic interests

The discussion illustrated the impact of the economy on many facets of the security situation in Libya. The lack of economic opportunities fuels the turn towards criminal activity, such as smuggling. Militia membership provides many with an income, meaning the demobilization cannot occur effectively without job opportunities after the fact.

All of the participants agreed that oil production remains central to the prospects for stability in Libya. Without the income and jobs flowing from the oil industry, the Libyan state and economy will not be able to provide conditions for sustainable peace. To this end, guaranteeing the … of the Libyan oil production infrastructure, as well as the equitable distribution of oil wealth through the Libyan Central Bank, are priorities for external interventions.

The discussion throughout the day questioned whether improving economic prospects in Libya was the first element that external interventions should focus on in order to generate the most tangible results overall. On the one hand, it was argued, an enhanced economy can help to assuage a range of other drivers of conflict in the country: increased militarization; the smuggling economy; weak institutions; lack of education and social programs - all of which would ameliorate the state of the security sector. On the other hand, economic initiatives require relative stability and security. The current unstable situation would hamper the ability of actors to find reliable partners and initiate sustainable programs.

Militias and politics

Following from the previous discussion, the participants noted that effective interventions in Libya, are impeded by the ever-changing nature of the security sector and its main actors. New groups, coalitions and alliances arise, older groups atomize, new leaders come to the fore and key figures depart from the scene. Mapping exercises and surveyance of the situation on the ground are necessary, but must be updated continuously. Information on leaders and authority structures from before 2014 is essentially irrelevant at this time, yet external actors continue to use out-of-date information as the foundation upon which interventions are built.

With respect to militias, groups are hybrid and fluid in nature. They are often characterized by hyper-regionalization and localization, undermining the notion of “national” armed groups. Groups emerge from particular (geographic) contexts, capturing the specific grievances that are present in these contexts as a basis for their existence. Brigades from Misrata, Sirte and elsewhere have competing interests and are supported by different, sometimes foreign, parties. Additionally, armed Salafist groups and the rise of ISIS further complicate the situation.

Have EU and other external interventions failed?

Given the unstable setting in which interventions take place, how can programs be insulated such that their effectiveness will not be tarnished? It was noted that it is crucial to take a long-term historical view of the readiness of Libyans for interventions. Libya is grappling with a legacy of incoherent institutional approaches, unclear and opaque administrative processes and disruption and disappearance of crucial data. Assumptions made by external actors, such as which ministry to direct resources to for specific ends, often do not take into account this legacy. The lack of unity in government has caused politicization of many of the elements of the Libyan government, for example the Libyan Central Bank and the ministry of oil.

External interventions have thus far often been characterized by a short-term perspective and a lack of institutional memory. The same mistakes are made repeatedly. Actors intervene on the basis of faulty or incomplete information, mapping is not comprehensive, and efforts are rife with incorrect assumptions. However, as the discussion illustrated, the perception among many Libyans that external interventions have been detrimental to the Libyan situation are not entirely correct. External mediation, for example, has enhanced the success of local ceasefires. The worst era of fighting in recent years, in 2014, was that in which no external mediation took place. Furthermore, the efforts to strengthen the GNA offer some hope for the future, and should not be halted prematurely. The problem many humanitarian efforts, such as those led by the EU, face is the lack of access. Many organizations are unable to work effectively in Libya, causing a lack of reliable humanitarian partners.

How can we move forward?

The main thread throughout the discussions was the inability of almost all actors to gain a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the situation on the ground. As such, there is a need for a greater push for scaled and well-grounded analyses evaluating various aspect of the political economy of Libya.

External actors are at risk of falling for drawing board program. The template-based solutions on offer, such as elections, will not necessarily fit the complex and ever-changing reality on the ground in Libya. Indeed, solutions of this kind aimed at reforming the security sector can play into the hands of those wielding the most influence at the time. Coupled with the aforementioned deep analyses, developing adaptive programming that takes into account the power dynamics on the ground will help to improve the effectiveness of efforts.

Institutions must be built up from a basic level. The legacy left over from under the Gaddafi regime greatly impacts their ability to function going forward. This legacy must be taken into account and dealt with, by improving coherence of institutional cooperation and clarity of institutional mandates.

The needs of the Libyan population, however diverse, must remain a focal point for all efforts. While the GNA must eventually take up the mantle of responsibility for these needs, external actors must find ways to support the Libyan population directly, bypassing the GNA where it lacks the capacity or ability to act and where the needs are pressing. However, these efforts must not undermine the legitimacy of the GNA and its ability to govern in the future - efforts must retain a long-term focus on sustainable self-governance.

 

News > ...

Understanding and engaging informal justice

25.10.2016

Should donors engage informal justice systems when developing justice related programming? And if so, how? This was the central question that was discussed during the Interactive Brainstorm ‘Understanding and Engaging Informal Justice’, which took place in The Hague on 20 October 2016.

The discussions of the day were based on the report ‘Understanding and Engaging Informal Justice’, written by Geoffrey Swenson. This report, as well as the insights from the event, will feed into a policy brief that aims to provide donors with concrete recommendations on how to best consider and engage informal justice systems when developing justice related programming in developing states.

A plea to improve inclusiveness in programming, a demand for increased applied research into what works (and what does not work) versus a call to translate the (anthropological) research that is readily available into meaningful policy advise, focus on underlying socio-economic challenges and not just on justice concerns: these are just a few of the many arguments and experiences that were shared during this interactive brainstorm. Geoffrey Swenson kick-started the discussion by presenting the main points of his report, namely the importance of the (political) context, and clarity and transparency regarding donor’s goals for engagement and the inevitable trade-offs that come with them. Are donors trying to increase the use of informal justice systems, is the aim to change these systems’ modus operandi by for example adding in international human rights standards, or is the intention to change the relationship between informal justice systems and the state system, by formalizing the informal?

The report was well received and the contributions of the participants served to fine-tune the argument. Notably, the discussion underlined the importance of an increased focus on power dynamics, not only between formal and informal justice systems and between these systems and their users, but also within the systems themselves. Linked to this, donors should also realize that whichever way they intervene, their interventions will affect power structures. As a result, if the impact of engagement cannot be fully understood, in some instances it might be better not to engage at all. However, as one of the participants argued, the question is not whether we want informal justice or not, as it is a reality that is not likely to disappear. Donors should ask themselves: what do we want to achieve, and what will be the impact of supporting informal justice systems? In addition to this, donors should be wary of using the word change because of its related high expectations. Instead, it makes much more sense to look at what actually works, what can be built upon, and gradually start introducing other groups to the process. It is only through these types of processes that incremental change can happen.

During the remainder of the day, pitches by the experts sparked debate on a multitude of issues, and experiences from Mali, Sierra Leone, DR Congo, Rwanda, South Sudan, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Bangladesh were shared. Semantics were discussed: oftentimes, it is difficult to distinguish between formal and informal systems – especially in fragile settings. Informal justice systems can be highly formalized and vice-versa. Next to this, it is important to think about how to keep all stakeholders, including the state and the wider community, involved in justice programming. Discussants suggested exploring ways in which justice provision can be seen as a public service was suggested, as was linking formal and informal systems to arrive at the closure of what was dubbed the ‘justice gap’ by one of the participants: the impunity that persists because some crimes are not targeted by either system.

Recommendations

During the recap of the discussion, the most pressing issues and important recommendations were shared. In order to understand informal justice systems, donors should:

  • Pay thorough attention to power dynamics between all stakeholders, and including the dynamics at play within informal justice systems themselves;
  • Realize that informality is not a local issue, but that it exists at all levels of society;
  • Pay attention to the interface between formal and informal justice, and be cautious that the two are not always easily distinguishable;
  • Comprehend what justice actually means to whom, and develop programming accordingly;
  • Build on the (academic) knowledge that is available.

 In order to engage with informal justice systems, donors should take care to:

  • Clearly articulate policy objectives;
  • Be modest in ambition and have realistic goals and expectations – and communicate honestly about these. On a scale from 1 to 10, moving from 2 to 3 is sometimes the best possible outcome;
  • Realize that only incremental change is possible, and that all change is political;
  • Create a safe space for innovative programming, including ample room for continuous adaptation as the programme develops;
  • Promote inclusivity and involve all stakeholders, including potential spoilers;
  • Identify the justice gap and put access to justice centre-stage;
  • Not apply different standards for working with formal and informal justice systems, for example in terms of international human rights standards;
  • Take evidence-based programming seriously;
  • Be cautious not to break what is there.
20 Oct

Understanding and engaging informal justice

Organized by:Secretariat of the Knowledge Platform Security & Rule of Law

Read a news item about this event here. Read a blog by Peter Albrecht here. Read the policy brief by Diana Goff here.

In this Interactive Brainstorm participants discussed the question of whether donors should engage informal justice systems when developing justice related programming, and if so, how. The discussion was an opportunity to discuss participants’ experiences as well as the findings from a report by Geoffrey Swenson entitled Understanding and Engaging Informal Justice, which fed into this event. The report, ideas and conclusions of the day fed into a policy brief that aims to provide donors with concrete recommendations on how to best consider and engage informal justice systems when developing justice related programming in developing states.

During this Brainstorm, key questions will be discussed by a small group of international experts, led by a moderator who will encourage broad participation. Participants will be asked to pitch their ideas on one the key topics of the day, which will then be discussed by the whole group, leading to key considerations for donor’s engagement with informal justice.

Outcomes     

  • Clear and actionable policy considerations and options for engagement with informal justice in developing countries in the form of a policy brief
  • Participating experts’ perspective on donor engagement in the form of a blog

More info

Interactive Brainstorms are initiated and executed by the Secretariat of the Knowledge Platform Security & Rule of Law with the aim to further the knowledge agenda of the Platform. The Secretariat of the Platform is run jointly by The Hague Institute for Global Justice and the Conflict Research Unit of the Clingendael Institute.

This event is by invitation only.

  • For more information on the content and program please contact Alies Rijper ([email protected])
  • For any practical issues, please feel free to send an email to the Platform Secretariat ([email protected]

 

, , ,
News > ...

Great Lakes: linking and learning

30.09.2016

With the projects under the Reconstruction Tender having concluded, Oxfam Novib and the Platform organized an informal learning event entitled “Great Lakes Reconstruction Tender: Linking and Learning” on 26 September. The informal event offered a venue for participants to share lessons learned from the project under the tender and explore how to integrate these learnings into future projects implementation.

Read more about the projects here.

Takeaways

The fruitful discussion throughout the day provided many interesting ideas for improving future implementation of programs. But what should really be taken into account?

There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Taking into account existing programs and frameworks, building on the challenges and opportunities they have encountered, and working complementarily instead of replicating work will save time, money and improve quality across the board.

Local partners should acknowledge and act upon the strength of their own capacities, expanding their presence in their working space and reducing reliance on external parties and organizations. In the same vein, external parties that work with local partners must develop honest and realistic exit strategies that bolster continuity and sustainability of initiatives that have been undertaken.

Flexibility and continual assessment are, as ever, key factors in determining whether or not programs make an impact. Ignoring changing realities, refusing to tweak and adjust along the way and being unable to alter objectives to the situation at hand are all detrimental to effective programming.

Finally, having a relationship with donors that extends past stretching out hands for money can only be beneficial. Involving them more closely with project design fosters a better working relationship, allowing donors to also cooperate better when a crisis situation does occur.

Agri-Business Creation (ABC) in Burundi - SPARK

SPARK’s ABC program in Burundi aimed to generate small-scale sustainable livelihoods for young people in the agricultural sector. Young people in the Great Lakes region are not interested in agriculture because of high intensity work and low profits. Additionally, there is little innovation in the sector and the priorities of the Burundian government, particularly after the 2015 crisis, lie elsewhere. However, SPARK’s project inspired a number of young people by providing them with consistent incomes.

The project generated many valuable insights. The first is that the cooperative was able to leverage its production capabilities to negotiate pricing with multinational it produced for. Additionally, augmenting economic opportunities in this way fills the gaps in a country where the government cannot provide for all its people. The discussion produced two notable recommendations for future planning: to integrate peacebuilding training into economic opportunity programs, so as to combine two parallel efforts; and to evaluate how to move the project’s impact beyond the local level to a more national scale.

Enhancing Local Peace Committees (LPCs) - ZOA & Radboud University Nijmegen

Corita Corbijn (ZOA) and Matthijs van Leeuwen (Radboud University Nijmegen) presented the results of their program, which explored assumptions guiding support for LPCs. The research then produced two toolkits, for practitioners and local stakeholders, visualize programmatic choices in intervention design.

The questions that were asked as part of the research showed that there was a disconnect between what questions the researchers considered important and those that were more important in practice. The larger questions, like the peace versus justice debate, were highly relevant to the LPCs, contrary to what was assumed. Furthermore, participants highlighted the importance of self-critique in interventions. Identifying and questioning assumptions is a crucial part of improving programmatic design.

Building Peace and Promoting Human Security in Post-Conflict Societies - CCR

This South Africa-based Centre for Conflict Resolution project initially aimed to benefit police, military and government institutions, but the focus was later adjusted to prioritize NGOs, CSOs and religious leaders due to conflicts in the Great Lakes region.

The project illustrated the need to focus on training 2 or more participants from specific organizations. Staff turnover means that knowledge of conflict resolution processes learned from trainings disappeared. In order to ensure sustainability, it was necessary to target multiple participants, from both positions of responsibility and the organization’s day-to-day project implementers. This way, CCR could encourage knowledge “cascading” throughout organizations.

Additionally, it was remarked that flexibility and continuous needs assessments are central to ensuring that training remain cognizant of new developments, especially in countries with fragile and ever-changing political environments.

Partners and a Regional Approach to Peacebuilding

Peace Beyond Borders - Oxfam Novib

The Peace Beyond Borders (PBB) project established and implemented through a consortium of partners a Regional Roadmap to Peace, designed from the bottom up by conflict-affected communities. The roadmap intended to address causes and consequences of conflict relating to land and governance.

Working with a consortium of partners enhanced the ability of the project to capitalize on the strengths and effective approaches of specific organizations. The consortium approach improved access to parties from various sectors, using the organizational connections built up by each member to great effect. This also helped to boost the legitimacy of the project as a whole.

The PBB project aimed to involve national, regional and international stakeholders at the design stage of the program. Instead of coopting stakeholders last minute, encouraging involvement at the design stage helps to ensure ownership of the process.

Another important insight from the project: building confidence and capacity of partners organizations and raising their awareness that it is their own space that they act in. What stops organizations like OAP and others from entering and working in this space without the engagement of parties like Oxfam Novib? These organizations must become the masters of their own space.

News > ...

Partnerships for peace: engaging diaspora

30.09.2016

On the 23rd of September 2016, the African Diaspora Policy Centre (ADPC) organised a seminar entitled “Partnerships for Peace: Engaging with Diaspora”. During the seminar, an interactive and open exchange of experiences among diaspora organizations, NGOs and policymakers took place, focusing on the challenges and opportunities in creating partnerships in the field of peacebuilding. Building on these experiences, the seminar worked towards identifying next steps and actionable recommendations to establishing and utilizing these partnerships for peace more effectively.

After a word of welcome from the director of ADPC, Awil Mohamoud, Mrs. Juliènne Doppenberg-Difukidi (Tosangana) and Mr. Olivier Muhizi (African Human Rights Network) shared their first-hand experiences in running a diaspora organization in the field of peacebuilding. Both provided some interesting best practices of what partnerships can bring. Whereas Juliènne’s organisation has been deeply involved in the National Action Plan 1325, a partnerships of different organizations and government on issues related to women, peace and security, Olivier recently established a new platform, which links up international NGOs with local human right defenders. Another great example of what type of partnerships exists. Both stressed the importance of working together to be able to contribute to sustainable peace.

On the basis of participants expertise and linkages with their activities, they then split up into peace network groups on either gender, radicalisation or youth. Facilitated by colleagues from WO=MEN, ICCT and The Hague Peace Projects, the groups delved deeper into the challenges and opportunities they face in their work when building partnerships and jointly identified next steps to address these. A key insight from the event was to turn the challenge faced by many diaspora organizations of having little capacity and resources, into the opportunity of joining forces, also with NGOs, when developing projects.

Overall the participants of the seminar expressed a clear interest and willingness to continue this exchange of experiences, to be able to learn from each other. A concrete idea would be to have this continued conversation as a way to actually explore possibilities of establishing partnerships.