Philosophy and Ideal schemes of a Community Violence Reduction Program
in a United Nation peacekeeping Mission Context
|
To Introduce the Concept
and Ideal schemes of CVR
|
DDR second
generation has started and experienced in Haiti in 2007[1],
in Central African Central African Republic (2014)[2] and
with variant models in South Soudan[3]
and in Ivory Coast in Somalia. The DDR second generation came after
observations that the results of traditional DDR efforts are far from even.
It’s was
clear that the traditional DDR activities is not adapted to all countries
contexts and can everywhere open the
way for a stable climate and other stabilization activities can effectively
pave the way for development. In this mind, second Generation DDR programmes
are a response to the challenging contexts in which the UN is working
alongside national governments, civil society, and international partners to
maintain the peace process and contribute to stabilization[4].
From the
experiences of the countries above mentioned, it’s outlined that the
reduction of community violence can be achieved if resources are truly
synergized and the response take into account the structuring and mechanisms
of operation of community violence in the community concerned, monitoring/follow-up
and proper exit strategy.
It accepted
that the DDR 1st Generation and CVR 2nd generation of
DDR peruse the same objective: Contribute
to security and stability in post-conflict environments so that recovery and
development can begin. And then, the Core DDR activities and projects of the
both pursue the same final goal:
Reintegration of Ex-Combatants into civilian life and to prevent the
resurgence of violence into affected communities.
It’s is
also evident that the CVR strategy is an alternative approaches to addressing
DDR and unregulated weapons circulation in the violent environment and avoids
the recovered of community structure by artisans of violence as was the case
in Haiti.
It’s important to highlight that:
·
CVR
activities and projects are a pretext to address and mitigate violence
through communities’ affected. CVR strategy use community-based resources
that are proven to address the problems of community violence. It
contemplates internal strengths and opportunities for conflict resolution and
/ or prevention and reinforces factors that make the community resilient to
the threats of internal and external violence[5].
·
The
strategy of CVR as second generation of DDR is an adaption approach[6] and
one of tools of the UN to identify ways of ‘disengaging’ combatants in
complex crisis, build peace, security and development communities.
·
As description
of a CVR ideal type programme, it not the intention propose a model for a
particular country. Because the implementation context of a CVR program may
vary from one country to another.
This
forward looking philosophy and strategy of CVR highlight, for users and CVR
client, the need of good relationship between actors and harmonization of the
CVR approach with the overall stabilization mission strategy, specifically
into the strategy of its substantives section and units.
|
|
Vision/ Anchoring:
|
From United
Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) & National Development
Program (NDP) and relevant UN and state guidance documents[7].
|
|
Fundamental Problems
|
·
Violence
crime remain the most important social problem affecting the quality of life in communities around the world;
·
Violence
and organized violence affects individuals, families, the community and human
society in general;
·
Violence
among and within communities is variable and multidimensional;
·
Organized
crime and community violence is a handicap for local, national and
international development.
|
|
Specific Problems
|
·
Community
violence in general, Specifically armed violence, whether by armed gangs,
militias or paramilitary groups is a threat to national and international
peace and security;
·
Non-legitimate
violence, whatever its form and purpose, or its instigator, is a serious
violation of human rights, dignity and the well-being of humanity.
|
|
Assumption:
|
·
The
stabilization of a social environment targeted by a Community Violence
Reduction program requires specific actions on natural vectors and structural
factors of community violence.
|
|
Main targets[8]:
|
·
Youth-at-risk;
·
Ex-combatants in the process of
reinsertion/reintegration and its former-associates ;
·
Prisoners
in the process of liberation and return to social and community life;
·
Victims of armed groups ;
·
Targeted
communities.
|
|
Key goals:
|
General goal
Create an enabling environment for the
reduction of armed violence and insecurity, through the combination of
efforts of community reconciliation, strengthening of State institutions,
development of the Haitian National Police (HNP), strengthening of the
judicial sector and socioeconomic recovery.
Specifics goals:
·
Outline
a CVR strategy in conformity with international standards and conventions are
drafted and endorsed at least at the level of affected communities in close
implication of state representatives;
·
Provide
alternatives to violence as a means of subsistence for disadvantaged and / or
at-risk youth, who are unoccupied, because their situation makes them
vulnerable more easily coveted by the offers of community violence actors;
·
Strengthen
the capacity of Security Sector institutions, especially Police Institution,
and communities to work together to address threats to social, economic and
physical security;
·
Support
the process of post-custodial reinsertion of detained common rights detainees
who will return to the target areas of the program[9].
|
|
Particular Strategy
|
·
Reinsertion
/ Re-socialization and psychosocial support for Youth-at-risk and victims of community violence;
·
Facilitating
/ supporting the reinsertion and/or reintegration of ex-combatants into
civilian and community life;
·
Prevention
and/or mitigation of community violence (Intra or inter, or specific
violence);
·
Improving
the Effectiveness of Criminal Justice;
·
Support
for the restoration of State authority and the establishment of Rule of Law.
|
|
Key interventions:
|
·
Vocational
training and job employment;
·
Socialization,
psychosocial support and civic education;
·
Rehabilitation
of community infrastructures;
·
Rapprochement
Police and Community;
·
Mediation,
conflict resolution and Social cohesion;
·
Social
mobilization and outreach;
·
Legal
assistance.
|
|
Key Concerns:
|
As inception:
·
Does the
proposed action meet a real need assessed under objective conditions and it
is linked to a vector and/or factor of community violence?
·
How proposed
action can support the reinsertion/reintegration of ex-combatants into
civilian and community life and/or mitigate the recruitment of youth-at-risk,
demobilized elements from militias and self-defense group by armed or
criminal groups?
·
How is
the proposed action effective in addressing the specific problem related to
the community violence?
·
How it
proposed action can contribute to serve as mediation, conflict resolution and
Social cohesion into the target community;
·
How will
be measured the effect and impact of such action on the overall problem of
community violence?
·
How is
efficient the cost to be invested for such an action?
|
|
Intervention
approach:
|
·
Holistic
and comprehensive (global and systematic rather than with individual parts);
·
Multi-dimensional
(Autonomy of system with the existence of components independent variable);
·
Multi-sectoral
(Multi-channel response with needed coordination and collaboration among
various stakeholder);
·
Multidirectional (reaching output from serval
directions).
|
|
Principale of action :
|
·
Good
offices, advice and support to the state institution in the field of
community violence reduction and reintegration / reintegration of
ex-combatants;
·
Rationality,
neutrality, impartiality, independence and objectivity of the program in
relation to the interests of belligerents in internal conflicts;
·
Efficiency,
effectiveness and sustainability of the intervention is the criterion for the
choice of the financing of a project proposal of the program;
·
Equal
treatment of partners and targeted beneficiaries;
·
Commitment
in the program is voluntary and free;
·
Sharing
responsibilities and synergizing resources, including endorsement of results:
failure and success, is the best way to implement a Community Violence
Reduction Program.
|
|
Key actors (Needs
assessment, Implementations, monitoring, supervision, monitoring and
evaluation) [10]:
|
·
Host
government and its series institutions such as the National Commission for
Disarmament, Demobilization and Reinsertion (NCDDR), Ministries and
Directorate having authority over the areas of intervention of the program,
Regional institutions (as Delegation and / or prefecture, Mayors Office and other
Local authorities), Defense and security forces (DSF) specifically the
National Police institution, Justice sector etc.;
·
Targeted
Communities and civil society: Community leaders including Religions leaders;
Targeted beneficiaries, Community Based Organizations (CBO’s), Private
sector; National and international Non-governmental Organizations (NGO’s), Armed
groups, …
·
University
and Strategic Research Centers on Peacekeeping and Peace Building;
·
United
Nations Stabilization Components, especially substantives sections and units
into stabilization mission;
·
Relevant
agencies from the United Nations Country Team (UNCT) UN affiliates
organizations[11];
·
Donors.
|
|
Qualitative and
quantitative Evidence of the Impact/Effect of the Program:
|
Dependent
on the projects and activities implemented the impact can be visible by the
following observations:
·
Decrease
of violence statistic related to robbery, domestic violence, beneficiary
communities;
·
Visible
improvement of the community environment;
·
Increased
intensity of economic activities in the community;
·
Increased
of the microenterprise and job employment in the respective communities;
·
Improvement
of the quality of community services in the vocational training channels
offered to youth- at- risk people
·
Harmonization
of relationships and restoration of trust between the community and the
police;
·
Strong success
statistics of the reinsertion and reintegration of ex-combatants into
civilian and community life;
·
Reduction
in the number of unoccupied and violent youth in target communities;
·
Decrease
in the number of repeat offenders released;
·
Decrease
in the number of cases of victims of expeditionary justice and popular
revenge;
·
Reduced
drug and alcohol abuse among youth;
·
Decrease
in the number of cases of detainee’s abusive and prolonged preventive
detention.
·
Reduction
in the number of street children and/or street children from the program's
target areas;
·
Decrease
in the number of children living on the streets or roaming in the streets,
from the target areas of the program;
|
|
·
The
population at large, through increased stability and prospects for economic
activity accruing from a reduction in violence and stability.
·
Government and its Security sector
institutions, through increased institutional capacity and presence to respond
to urgent needs in terms of policing, crime prevention and local visibility;
·
Community groups (associations, local NGOs,
municipal forums…), through their participation in local community and
recovery projects, with an emphasis on their empowerment and accountability
within a community driven planning process;
·
High-risk groups, including women and
children through the creation of educational supports and short employment
opportunities in community development schemes.
·
Ex-Combatants
who will really reintegrated in into their civilian life;
| |
|
Final expectation:
|
·
Loss of
influence and power of armed and criminal groups on targeted communities;
·
Targeted
communities are stabilized and then development can begin;
·
Development
and / or improvement of community resilience factors to prevent community
violence, respond to threats and / or resurgence of community violence.
|
|
Accountability:
|
As all UN
programmes, CVR projects and activities supported by UN or donors funds are
subject to audit. It’s the obligation of the implementation team, external
actors and the organization ensure that the accountability schemes are taken
in consideration and the results are in a transparent manner.
It’s also
important to specify CVR programmes and its projects/activities are subject
to internal and external evaluation. Its evaluation need to outline best
practices and lessons learned for correctives actions and sharing experiences
with other UN missions and actors[13].
|
|
As Conclude
|
Community
Violence Reduction cannot achieve planned goals and sustainable if the
program has not set-up in proper condition and with inclusion of key actors. Community
Violence Reduction strategy, whereby all intervention dependencies have been
identified in concentration actors and beneficiaries in pursuit of a common
goal and shared objectives.
CVR is not
an end in itself. It is only an additional tool to support the stabilization
process. It adapts to the context of its target communities. As a result,
there is no one-way CVR strategy. However, there is a CVR approach that
implies the use of appropriate community mechanisms to achieve community
stabilization.
CVR strategy
need to be manage by legitimate authorities and/or states institutions. As
new concept in the Peacekeeping operation, CVR strategy need to paid
attention to lesson learn and build it knowledge to serve DPKO mission and
host country. It is necessary to paid attention to lessons learnt, imagine
new way, and develop new knowledge to address violence into communities because:
Aggregate reductions can also mask the variability in violence among and
within communities.
|
|
Relevant Sources:
|
1. OPERATIONAL GUIDE TO THE INTEGRATED
DISARMAMENT, DEMOBILIZATION AND REINTEGRATION
STANDARDS, http://www.unddr.org/uploads/documents/Operational%20Guide.pdf, UN 2014;
2. Kofi A. Annan, United Nations
Secretary-General (Endorsed by)
INTEGRATED DISARMAMENT, DEMOBILIZATION AND REINTEGRATION STANDARDS, December
2006;
3. United Nations Department of Peacekeeping
Operations, Office of Rule of Law and Security Institutions Disarmament,
Demobilization and Reintegration Section (Report
commissioned by), SECOND GENERATION DISARMAMENT, DEMOBILIZATION AND
REINTEGRATION (DDR) PRACTICES IN PEACE OPERATIONS, A Contribution to the New Horizon Discussion on Challenges and
Opportunities for UN Peacekeeping, http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/documents/2GDDR_ENG_WITH_COVER.pdf, United
Nations 2010, Department of Peacekeeping Operations, 380, Madison Ave, 11th
Floor New York, NY 10017, USA.
4. United Nations Disarmament, Demobilization
and Reintegration Resources Center http://www.unddr.org/what-is-ddr/introduction_1.aspx;
5. Re-orienting DDR to Community Violence
Reduction (CVR) in Haiti http://www.ssrresourcecentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/MINUSTAH_CVR_strategy.pdf, September 2007.
6.
Office des Nations Unies contre
la Drogue et le Crime, MESURES CARCÉRALES ET MESURES NON PRIVATIVES DE
LIBERTÉ : Réinsertion sociale, (Compilation
d'outils d'évaluation de la justice pénale) https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/cjat/Reinsertion_sociale.pdf.
7.
L’accompagnement social des
condamnés et des sortants de prison, http://conference-consensus.justice.gouv.fr/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/fiche-15-accompagnement-social-sortants-prison.pdf,
New York, 2008.
|
[1] Re-orienting DDR to Community Violence Reduction (CVR)
in Haiti, http://www.ssrresourcecentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/MINUSTAH_CVR_strategy.pdf,
2007.
[2] UN Multidimensional
Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic, Le programme de réduction de violence
communautaire entre dans sa phase active, http://reliefweb.int/report/central-african-republic/le-programme-de-r-duction-de-violence-communautaire-entre-dans-sa, 01 Feb
2017.
[3] Southern Sudan and DDR: Adopting an Integrated
Approach to Stabilization, http://www.smallarmssurveysudan.org/fileadmin/docs/facts-figures/HSBA-Sudan-conference-papers.pdf, Small Arms Survey, Graduate Institute of International
and Development, Studies, Geneva 2009
[4] Please, see United Nations
(2010) “SECOND GENERATION DISARMAMENT, DEMOBILIZATION AND REINTEGRATION (DDR)
PRACTICES”, http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/documents/2GDDR_ENG_WITH_COVER.pdf, page 14.
[5] Jean Laforest Visene de
Lyvia Tulcé (by), M.A.QU’EST-CE QUE LA
STRATEGIE « REDUCTION DE LA VIOLENCE COMMUNAUTAIRE (RVC) » ?, http://visenejl.blogspot.com/2014/06/quest-ce-que-la-strategie-reduction-de.html
[6] Muggah, R. & O'Donnell, C., (2015). Next
Generation Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration. Stability:
International Journal of Security and Development, See abstract on : http://www.stabilityjournal.org/articles/10.5334/sta.fs/
[7] Jean Laforest Visene de Lyvia Tulcé (by),
Linkage of the Community Reduction Violence approach in Haiti, http://visenejl.blogspot.com/2014/03/linked-of-community-reduction-violence.html, 30 mars 2014.
[11] DPA, DPI, DPKO, ILO, IOM, ODA, ODA, OHCHR, OSAA, OSRSG
CAAC, PBSO, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNEP, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNIDIR, UNITAR, UN WOMEN,
WFP, WHO, World Bank.
[12] Jean Laforest VISENE de
Lyvia Tulce (by), Choisir des
bénéficiaires des programmes D‘apaisement social visant la résolution des
problèmes de Violence : Proposition d’un modèle de sélection, http://visenejl.blogspot.com/2014/08/choisir-des-beneficiaires-des.html, lundi
11 août 2014.
[13] Jean Laforest VISENE de
Lyvia Tulce (by), APPROCHE DE
COMPTABILISATION DES BÉNÉFICIAIRES D’UN PROGRAMME VISANT A DIMINUER LES
POTENTIALITES DE VIOLENCE DANS LES ZONES DIFFICILES, http://visenejl.blogspot.com/2015/08/approche-de-comptabilisation-des_12.html, 8 aout 2015.
