From Exchanging Weapons for Development to Security Sector Reform in Albania

130 Pages·2004·0.72 MB·English

i
UNIDIR/2004/19
From Exchanging Weapons for
Development to Security Sector Reform
in Albania
Gaps and Grey Areas in
Weapon Collection Programmes
Assessed by Local People
Geofrey Mugumya
UNIDIR
United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research
Geneva, Switzerland
NOTE
The designations employed and the presentation of the
material in this publication do not imply the expression of any
opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the
United Nations concerning the legal status of any country,
territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the
delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
*
* *
The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations
Secretariat.
UNIDIR/2004/19
Copyright © United Nations, 2004
All rights reserved
UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION
Sales No. GV.E.04.0.19
ISBN 92-9045-165-3
The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR)—an
intergovernmental organization within the United Nations—conducts
research on disarmament and security. UNIDIR is based in Geneva,
Switzerland, the centre for bilateral and multilateral disarmament and non-
proliferation negotiations, and home of the Conference on Disarmament.
The Institute explores current issues pertaining to the variety of existing and
future armaments, as well as global diplomacy and local entrenched
tensions and conflicts. Working with researchers, diplomats, Government
officials, NGOs and other institutions since 1980, UNIDIR acts as a bridge
between the research community and Governments. UNIDIR’s activities
are funded by contributions from Governments and donors foundations.
The Institute’s web site can be found at URL:
http://www.unidir.org
Cover page: designed by Diego Oyarzún-Reyes (UNCTAD)
iv
CONTENTS
Page
Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Acronyms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
Chapter 1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
New Evaluation Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Undertaking the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Challenges and Obstacles to Be Avoided. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
General Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Presentation of Findings and Policy Recommendations. . . . . . . 10
Chapter 2 Development and Application of the Methodology . . . . 15
Key Evaluation of Research Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Selection and Training of Trainee Facilitators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
The New Evaluation Methodology: PM&E and the
Five Evaluation Techniques. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Arrangements before Proceeding to the Focus Groups . . . . . . . 27
General Community Meeting and Forming the Focus Groups . . 28
Chapter 3 Overview of Weapon Collection: Experiences
and Perspectives of Secondary Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . 31
Causes of SALW Proliferation in Albania. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Reasons for Starting Weapon Collection Programmes . . . . . . . . 34
Strategy and Process of Weapon Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Challenges in Implementing Weapon Collection Programmes. . 37
Measures to Curb Small Arms Proliferation
and Armed Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Measuring “Success” or “Failure” of
Weapon Collection Programmes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
v
vi
Chapter 4 Men’s Focus Groups: Experiences and Perspectives
of Rural-Based, Urban-Based and Border-Based Men. . . 43
Before and Now Situations Analysis (BANSA):
Evaluating Project Goals and Purposes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Determining Decision-Making Process:
Evaluating Project Identification and Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Conversational Interviews:
Evaluating Project Appraisal and Implementation. . . . . . . . . 53
Community Calendar Approach:
Evaluating Project Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Three Star Game: Evaluating Project Performance. . . . . . . . . . . 60
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Chapter 5 Women’s Focus Groups:
Experiences and Perspectives of Rural-Based,
Urban-Based and Border-Based Women . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Before and Now Situations Analysis (BANSA):
Evaluating Project Goals and Purposes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Determining Decision-Making Process:
Evaluating Projects Identification and Design . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Conversational Interviews:
Evaluating Project Appraisal and Implementation. . . . . . . . . 75
Community Calendar Approach:
Evaluating Project Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Three Star Game: Evaluating Project Performance. . . . . . . . . . . 78
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Chapter 6 Focus Groups of Young Men and Women:
Experiences and Perspectives of Rural-Based,
Urban-Based and Border-Based Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Before and Now Situations Analysis (BANSA):
Evaluating Project Goals and Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Determining Decision-Making Process:
Evaluating Project Identification and Design . . . . . . . . . . 86
vii
Conversational Interviews:
Evaluating Project Appraisal and Implementation . . . . . . 90
Community Calendar Approach:
Evaluating Project Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Three Star Game: Evaluating Project Performance. . . . . . . . . . . 92
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Chapter 7 Synthesis and Analysis of the General Lessons Learned. . 97
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Project Conception, Design and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Gender Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Assessment and Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Characteristics of the Incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Best Practises in Weapon Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Long Term Resource Mobilisation Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Chapter 8 Policy Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Funding Weapons for Development Programmes . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Need for Decentralised but Coordinated
Programme Implementation Arrangements. . . . . . . . . . . 105
Women and Informal Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Security Sector Reform (SSR). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Regional Integrated Programmes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Community and Childhood Peace Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Regarding Research and Advocacy on SALW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Recent UNIDIR Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
viii
PREFACE
The devastating effect of small arms and light weapons on people’s
livelihoods, as well as their long-term effects on the economic and social
sustainability of local communities, have prompted a wide range of
international responses. Increasingly, micro-disarmament efforts to reduce
the presence of small arms favour weapon collection programmes as a
means to break the cycle of violence fuelled by the availability of weapons.
Communities and individuals are encouraged to hand over their guns, often
in exchange for individual or collective incentives.
UNIDIR undertook a two-year assessment of weapons collection
programmes in exchange for community-based development projects. The
project used Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E) techniques to
harness the analysis and perceptions of affected communities directly, thus
offering both innovative and more efficient lessons for designing and
implementing post-conflict disarmament programmes.
UNIDIR is grateful for the generous financial support offered by the
Government of Japan as well as for the personal support it received from
members of the Japanese Government. UNIDIR is also particularly
indebted to the people of the Albanian cities of Bajza, Pishaj and Shushica;
NGOs; local authorities; and the Government of Albania without whose
contribution and assistance this research would not have been possible.
This volume presents the results from the research carried out in
Albania in November 2003. These findings serve to underscore the
necessity for deeper and wider involvement of local people in all aspects of
weapon collection, as a more direct and accurate path to understanding the
root causes of violence and identifying solutions. The study suggests that the
best means of ensuring successful weapon collection programmes is to
place local communities at the centre of the design and implementation of
these programmes. In particular, the differing perspective of key sections of
the communities—women, men, youths and children—need to be
factored into decision making for conflict prevention.
ix
x
We have learned that participatory approaches can provide impetus
for sustainable peace and security through inventive and better targeted
disarmament programmes, for the welfare and security of people
worldwide.
Patricia Lewis
Director
UNIDIR