1 preventing & responding to conflict: a new approach january 2009
TRANSCRIPT
1
Preventing & Responding to Conflict: A New Approach
January 2009
2
17 Post-Conflict Operations Since the Cold War
3
National Security Presidential Directive 44
“To promote the security of the United States through improved coordination, planning and implementation of stabilization and reconstruction assistance…[in] foreign states and regions at risk of, in, or in transition from conflict or civil strife.”
Management of Interagency Efforts Concerning Reconstruction & Stabilization
4
How We Help
Civilian Capacity: The Civilian Stabilization Initiative, funded with $55 million in the FY2008 Supplemental, and with $248.6 million requested for FY2009, will create an interagency Civilian Response Corps with Active, Standby, and Reserve components.
Train & Exercise: Seven new Reconstruction and Stabilization (R&S) training courses are being offered for civilians and military at the Foreign Service Institute as part of an integrated training strategy under development. A joint exercise strategy for R&S operations tests the new USG capabilities.
Plan: The U.S. Government Planning Framework for R&S and Conflict Transformation and the Interagency Conflict Assessment Framework, approved in July 2008, integrate planning and assessment across all agencies.
Conduct: The Interagency Management System for R&S, approved in March 2007, provides a new three-tiered system to manage interagency planning and operations.
5
No unified operating system to ensure unity of action (planning, executing, monitoring)
Limited civilian capacity to manage and implement R&S response
Gap in specialized training and preparation for civilians deploying quickly to conflict and unstable environments.
No common repository for capturing and applying lessons learned and best practices.
Critical shortage of rapid, flexible funding for non-humanitarian activities -- constrains effective allocation and management of R&S resources; slows rate of U.S. civilian deployments.
Reconstruction & Stabilization Challenges
Lack of common planning and assessment process and reliable measures of progress
USG Planning
Framework for R&S
6
A New Planning Framework for R&S
.
.
.
Supporting &
Feedback
Essential Task Area #1
Essential Task Area #2
Essential Task Area #3
Essential Task Area #4
Essential Task Area #1
Essential Task Area #2
Essential Task Area #3
Essential Task Area #4
Essential Task Area #1
Essential Task Area #2
Essential Task Area #3
Essential Task Area #4
Essential Task Area #1
Essential Task Area #2
Essential Task Area #1
Essential Task Area #2
Essential Task Area #3
Essential Task Area #1
Essential Task Area #2
Essential Task Area #3
Essential Task Area #4
Essential Task Area #5
Essential Task Area #6
Major Mission Element #5
Major Mission Element #1
Major Mission Element #2
Major Mission Element #3
Major Mission Element #4
Major Mission Element #6
CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION GOAL
Essential Task Area #1
Essential Task Area #2
Essential Task Area #3
Essential Task Area #4
Essential Task Area #1
Essential Task Area #2
Essential Task Area #3
Essential Task Area #4
Essential Task Area #1
Essential Task Area #2
Essential Task Area #3
Essential Task Area #4
Essential Task Area #1
Essential Task Area #2
Essential Task Area #1
Essential Task Area #2
Essential Task Area #3
Essential Task Area #1
Essential Task Area #2
Essential Task Area #3
Essential Task Area #4
Essential Task Area #5
Essential Task Area #6
Major Mission Element #5
Major Mission Element #1
Major Mission Element #2
Major Mission Element #3
Major Mission Element #4
Major Mission Element #6
Vision
ActivityActivity
Activity
TasksTasks
TasksActivity
ActivityActivity
TasksTasks
Tasks
USG Implementation Plans & Execution
Washington
Field
R&S USG Strategic Plan -- One USG policy goal; interagency-crafted strategies to address sources of conflict; resource strategy and designation of USG lead for implementation
Interagency Implementation Plan -- Interagency-crafted sub-objective concepts; synchronization and prioritization of Agency activities over time and space; monitoring and revision
8
Reconstruction & Stabilization Challenges
Interagency Management System for Reconstruction & Stabilization
Lack of common planning and assessment process and reliable measures of progress
No unified operating system to ensure unity of action (planning, executing, monitoring)
Limited civilian capacity to manage and implement R&S response
Gap in specialized training and preparation for civilians deploying quickly to conflict and unstable environments.
No common repository for capturing and applying lessons learned and best practices.
Critical shortage of rapid, flexible funding for non-humanitarian activities -- constrains effective allocation and management of R&S resources; slows rate of U.S. civilian deployments.
9
Interagency Management System for R&S
Three-tiered to ensure unity of action at all levels (Washington, regional military HQ, field):
Provides policymakers with the tools to plan and conduct integrated whole-of-government responses to highly complex crises affecting U.S. national interests, drawing on the expertise, staff and resources of all relevant departments and agencies.
1. Country Reconstruction & Stabilization Group (CRSG): Washington-based interagency decision-making body, supported by a full-time interagency Secretariat that performs planning and operations functions and mobilizes resources.
2. Integration Planning Cell (IPC): Interagency planners and experts who deploy to the relevant military headquarters to assist in harmonizing civilian and military planning and operations.
3. Advance Civilian Team (ACT): Provides the U.S. Ambassador with the capability to integrate activities in order to achieve unity of effort in the development and execution of reconstruction and stabilization plans. The ACT helps to integrate planning and resource allocation, operations, knowledge management and strategic communication.
10
A New Interagency Management System
Field Advance Civilian Team
Country Reconstruction & Stabilization Group -- a Washington-based interagency decision-making body, supported by a full-time interagency Secretariat that performs planning and operations functions and mobilizes resources
Co Chaired by State Dept. Regional Assistant Secretary, S/CRS Coordinator, National Security Council Director
Integration Planning Cell -- interagency planners and regional and sectoral experts
Deploys to relevant Geographic Combatant Command or to multinational headquarters
Assists in harmonizing ongoing planning and operations between civilian and military agencies and/or the USG and multinational HQ
Advance Civilian Team -- Supports Chief of Mission in the field to develop, execute, and monitor plans
Provides interagency field management, deployment, and logistics capabilities
Develops and implement activities through regional field teams
12
Lack of common planning and assessment process and reliable measures of progress
No unified operating system to ensure unity of action (planning, executing, monitoring)
Limited civilian capacity to manage and implement R&S response
Gap in specialized training and preparation for civilians deploying quickly to conflict and unstable environments.
No common repository for capturing and applying lessons learned and best practices.
Critical shortage of rapid, flexible funding for non-humanitarian activities -- constrains effective allocation and management of R&S resources; slows rate of U.S. civilian deployments.
Reconstruction & Stabilization Challenges
Civilian Response
Corps
13
Days Following Crisis
Hire 250 Identify 2000 Recruit 2000
30-45 45-90 2-5 Days
Civilian Response Corps
Standing agency capacity for rapid response to
assess situation, design response and begin R&S
implementation
Civilian agency USG employees who have ongoing job
responsibilities but are trained and available for deployments
USG employees when mobilized, they have regular
jobs outside the USG and provide sector-specific
response expertise
14
Criminal Justice& Policing
Criminal Justice& Policing
Economic RecoveryEconomic Recovery
Essential ServicesEssential Services
Diplomacy & Governance
Diplomacy & Governance
Diplomatic Security
Diplomatic Security
State, Justice, Homeland Security and USAID: police, legal, judicial, and corrections personnel -- assess, plan and start up full-spectrum criminal justice operations and development
State and USAID: core group of officers to manage mission set up and field teams in assessment, operations setup, planning, program design/startup, military liaison, local engagement
Agriculture, Treasury, Commerce and USAID: experts in agriculture, rural development, commerce, taxes, monetary policy, and business and financial services -- assess, plan, and help stand up economic recovery programs
USAID and Health & Human Services: experts in public health, infrastructure, education, and labor -- assess, plan, and help stand up essential public services
State: Diplomatic Security Agents -- security officers and security planners in the IMS
State and USAID: officers covering rule of law, human rights, protection, governance, conflict mitigation, civil society/media, and SSR issues -- assess, plan, and stand up diplomatic, democracy, and governance programs in a crisis
The Civilian Response Corps’ Active Officers
Planning, Operations & Management
Planning, Operations & Management
16
Lack of common planning and assessment process and reliable measures of progress
No unified operating system to ensure unity of action (planning, executing, monitoring)
Limited civilian capacity to manage and implement R&S response
Gap in specialized training and preparation for civilians deploying quickly to conflict and unstable environments.
No common repository for capturing and applying lessons learned and best practices.
Critical shortage of rapid, flexible funding for non-humanitarian activities -- constrains effective allocation and management of R&S resources; slows rate of U.S. civilian deployments.
Reconstruction & Stabilization Challenges
Interagency R&S Training
and Education System
17
Lack of common planning and assessment process and reliable measures of progress
No unified operating system to ensure unity of action (planning, executing, monitoring)
Limited civilian capacity to manage and implement R&S response
Gap in specialized training and preparation for civilians deploying quickly to conflict and unstable environments.
Critical shortage of rapid, flexible funding for non-humanitarian activities -- constrains effective allocation and management of R&S resources; slows rate of U.S. civilian deployments.
Reconstruction & Stabilization Challenges
Developing a USG Lessons Learned System for R&S. Held a PRT Lessons Learned workshop.
Essential Task Matrix
DDR, elections and other thematic guides for planners
Integration of lessons into training curriculum
No common repository for capturing and applying lessons learned and best practices.
18
Reconstruction & Stabilization Challenges
Proposed Conflict Response Fund (not approved)
Section 1207 renewed in FY08 NDAA
Funds for deployment of the Civilian Response Corps in the 2008 supplemental
Critical shortage of rapid, flexible funding for non-humanitarian activities -- constrains effective allocation and management of R&S resources; slows rate of U.S. civilian deployments.
Lack of common planning and assessment process and reliable measures of progress
No unified operating system to ensure unity of action (planning, executing, monitoring)
Limited civilian capacity to manage and implement R&S response
Gap in specialized training and preparation for civilians deploying quickly to conflict and unstable environments.
No common repository for capturing and applying lessons learned and best practices.