Walt Kilroy12

Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) as a participatory

process: involving communities and beneficiaries in post-conflict
disarmament programmes

Abbreviations

CBO: Community-Based Organisation

CDD: Community-Driven Development (CDD)
CSO: Civil Society Organisation
DDR: Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration
DRC: Democratic Republic of Congo
IDDRS: Integrated DDR Standards
IGO: Inter-Governmental Organisation
NCDDR: National Commission on DDR
NGO: Non-Governmental Organisation
PM&E: Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation
SIDDR: Stockholm Initiative on DDR
SRSG: Special Representative of the [UN] Secretary General
UNDP: United Nations Development Programme

Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) programmes are a structured

approach to returning combatants and others associated with armed groups to civilian
life or to restructured security sector positions in the course of a peace process. The
objectives include reducing the number of potential spoilers, helping the political and
social recovery of the country, and reducing insecurity, thereby underpinning the
peace process. Since the early 90s, UN-lead DDR has been implemented by the
countries experiencing conflict such as Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola and
Afghanistan. DDR programmes are underway or imminent in the Democratic
Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, and Sudan. The results have been mixed, and
analysis is possible on which factors are associated with successful DDR and its role

1
DCU
2
The support of the Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice, in the form of the Jesuit Solidarity Scholarship,
is gratefully acknowledged. The assistance of Trócaire and its staff in head office and West Africa has
also been of great help in furthering this research project.

1
in supporting the peace process. This study intends to look at the possible benefits of
taking a participatory approach to DDR, in which all the stakeholders are consulted
and involved in planning, implementing and reviewing the process.

The term ‘participation’ in this study is taken from the development context, as
explained by Robert Chambers (1997, 1998), and as promoted by those agencies
committed to a partnership approach to development work through nationally-based
non-governmental organisations (NGOs). This requires, among other things, that the
beneficiaries and implementers of a development programme are genuinely involved
in, consulted on, and make input to, the main stages of its planning, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation. The objective is not only that a better and more relevant
programme is developed; it also aims to engender a higher level of ‘ownership’ of it
by community, building of capacity among actors in the country, and greater
sustainability of the programme’s outputs. The importance of these factors in DDR is
that reintegration of ex-combatants can be a difficult process for all parties, including
the communities which are being asked to accept them, which requires political buy-
in at several levels, if it is to be sustainable. A badly conceived or managed process, in
which there is inadequate participation can lead to resentment, unfulfilled
expectations, and a perception of unfair rewards for militia members. All these factors
can in turn affect the outcome negatively.

The hypothesis for this study is that genuine participation by all the stakeholders is a
significant element in designing successful DDR programmes. It is a necessary
condition for ensuring that the issues being addressed reflect the genuine needs of ex-
combatants, and also of the communities which are being asked to receive them.
Meaningful participation is also important in ensuring effective implementation of
programmes, which will in any case face unexpected challenges, and which rely on
the goodwill of many local actors.

The research question asks: is a participatory approach to DDR associated with

greater success in ensuring implementation of the programme, and with more
sustainable reintegration of ex-combatants? Subsidiary questions are: Is a successful
DDR programme associated with more effective implementation of peace agreements,
a reduction in the number of spoilers, and the opportunity for these spoilers to have an

2
impact? The indicators for measuring these variables are being devised, as the next
stage in this research project.

The importance of involving communities in DDR and related processes is being

increasingly recognised, even though this raises many challenges for international
actors. The principles guiding the UN approach to DDR, as adopted by the General
Assembly, encourage planners to facilitate participation by ex-combatants,
communities, and other stakeholders in the process. This is also spelt out in the
recently published Integrated DDR Standards (IDDRS) (2006) and its Operational
Guide, which says (2006: 26) that the process should be:
People-centred;
Flexible, transparent and accountable;
Nationally-owned;
Integrated; and
Well planned.

Participation by ex-combatants is normally addressed during the Demobilisation and

Reintegration phases. A more difficult question is facilitating participation by
communities – some of whom may have suffered at the hands of armed groups. From
an economic perspective, it is within these communities that ex-combatants will
attempt to forge a new livelihood: the community provides the employers, the market,
and context for making a new life. It is essential, therefore, that their voice is heard
early on in the assessment and planning process, at a stage and in a way which allows
them to have an influence on the outcome. It can help to identify precarious local
economic activities which may be disrupted or damaged by providing certain types of
assistance to ex-combatants during reintegration. It is also required during
implementation, and any ongoing monitoring and evaluation. It helps to establish the
legitimacy of the programming and implementers.

Participation is also a means of building local capacity, and therefore sustainability,

and of reducing the risk of creating dependency on resource flows from international
actors which are time-limited. Another essential element, although less tangible, is the

3
sense of ownership among stakeholders, and their belief in the process. This can be
fostered by a participatory approach, or destroyed by one which excludes or alienates
them. Such exclusion can arise quite unintentionally, and it can have repercussions for
various groups’ attitudes to the peace process and reconciliation. Civil society groups
are a rich source of expertise, with access to informal networks and information at
national, local and community level. Nevertheless, they are easily overlooked by
international NGOs and intergovernmental organisations (IGOs). This exclusion can
arise even when the international agency concerned is openly committed to working
in partnership with national actors and civil society.

Definitions

The conceptualisation and practice of DDR has evolved since the early 1990s, as it
became accepted as a standard tool to be included in comprehensive peace
agreements. While it may still contend with a lingering perception that it is a ‘cash for
guns’ deal, DDR has become a sophisticated and multi-faceted operation, often
involving a dozen or more agencies.

The accepted definition of DDR within the UN system was produced by the UN
Secretary General in 2005, adopted by the General Assembly, and reiterated since
then as:

4
 Disarmament is the collection, documentation, control and
disposal of small arms, ammunition, explosives and light and
heavy weapons of combatants and often also of the civilian
population. Disarmament also includes the development of
responsible arms management programmes.

Demobilisation is the formal and controlled discharge of active

combatants from armed forces or other armed groups. The first
stage of demobilization may extend from the processing of
individual combatants in temporary centres to the massing of
troops in camps designated for this purpose (cantonment sites,
encampments, assembly areas or barracks). The second stage of
demobilization encompasses the support package provided to the
demobilized, which is called reinsertion.

Reinsertion is the assistance offered to ex-combatants during

demobilization but prior to the longer-term process of
reintegration. Reinsertion is a form of transitional assistance to
help cover the basic needs of ex-combatants and their families
and can include transitional safety allowances, food, clothes,
shelter, medical services, short-term education, training,
employment and tools. While reintegration is a long-term,
continuous social and economic process of development,
reinsertion is a short-term material and/or financial assistance to
meet immediate needs, and can last up to one year.

Reintegration is the process by which ex-combatants acquire

civilian status and gain sustainable employment and income.
Reintegration is essentially a social and economic process with
an open timeframe, primarily taking place in communities at the
local level. It is part of the general development of a country and
a national responsibility, and often necessitates long-term
external assistance.
UN Secretary General (2006: 8)

This definition has also been adopted in the Integrated DDR Standards (IDDRS)
(2006).

An integrated, holistic approach to DDR

DDR is best viewed as an integrated set of processes, which are themselves a part of
the wider peace process. It arises from the peace processes, and has the capacity to
provide positive or negative feedback into it. The possible feedbacks arise from
confidence building between parties, opening lines of communication, addressing
interests, and providing incentives at a number of levels. It can also bring tensions to

5
the surface, especially when resources from jobs are to be divided up, or where local
commanders’ interests diverge from those of their leaders or the combatants. DDR
cannot bring political agreement on its own, and a peace process which collapses will
leave a DDR programme in an untenable position, as seen in the failure of the first
DDR programme in Angola (Gomes Porto and Parsons, 2003).

DDR as an integral part of the peace process

Berdal (1996: 73) refers to ‘an interplay, a subtle interaction, between the dynamics of
a peace process’ and the way in which DDR is implemented. Colletta et al (1996: 18)
say:

Successful long-term reintegration can make a major

contribution to national conflict resolution and to restoration of
social capital. Conversely, failure to achieve reintegration can
lead to considerable insecurity at the societal and individual
levels, including rent-seeking behaviour through the barrel of a
gun.

The Stockholm Initiative on DDR (SIDDR) has produced guiding principles on DDR
and recommendations for mediators and facilitators who are involved in brokering
peace negotiations (2006: 41-45). This practical contribution recognises the essential
connection between DDR and the entire peace process, and their ability to influence
each other. It also helps to ensure that good foundations for DDR are laid early on,
both in terms of the outline contained in the peace agreement, and the expectations
and level of ownership among the stakeholders from donors to combatants.

The importance of a holistic approach for DDR was recognised as early as the mid
90s, at the level of planning, funding, and ensuring that there is effective transition
from demobilisation to reintegration (Berdal, 1996: 74-75). However, the reality is
that while a holistic approach has often been advocated, putting this into practice
involves dealing with considerable challenges. The difficulties include:

The short time frame given for starting the implementation of DDR
programmes, since there is a desire to prevent spoilers emerging from the armed
groups and threatening the peace process.

6
 The fact that many different actors are involved, sometimes with radically
different organisational cultures, capacities, and perspectives, each of which
brings their own interests and requirements for accountability.
The fact that different elements of the programme, which range from traditional
peacekeeping operations to community-based NGOs, require funding from
disparate donors, who themselves have a variety of perspectives. Resources for
disarmament are generally more readily available than funding for reintegration.

The need for a holistic view of DDR underlines the importance taking a participatory
approach: this recognises the complex relationships between all the actors, and the
long-term implications of how a programme is implemented. Such an approach has
implications for less tangible aspects of the process. Enduring perceptions are
established at this vital stage of post-conflict reconstruction, when beneficiaries
quickly understand about incentives, whether authorities can be trusted, and the way
in which others make decisions which will affect their lives.

Transition from DDR to recovery and development

Besides the growing recognition of the importance of an integrated approach, DDR’s
essential link with recovery programming and development is also more widely
acknowledged. The UNDP Practice Note on DDR (2005a: 5) describes it as ‘a
complex process, with political, military, security, humanitarian and socioeconomic
dimensions’, and says that while much of the programme focuses on ex-combatants,
‘the main beneficiaries of the programme should ultimately be the wider community’
(2005b: 11)3. DDR must therefore be ‘conceptualised, designed, planned and
implemented within a wider recovery and development framework.’ (2005b: 6).

However, an important distinction is drawn by some between those objectives which

DDR can directly address, and those to which it can only contribute. A conference of
practitioners in 2005 concluded that DDR programmes should concentrate on what
3
The UNDP’s Practice Note on DDR goes on to list the objectives:
• To contribute to security and stability by facilitating reintegration and providing the enabling
environment for rehabilitation and recovery to begin;
• To restore trust through confidence-building among conflicting factions and with the general
population;
• To help prevent or mitigate future violent conflict;
• To contribute to national reconciliation; and
• To free up human and financial resources, and social capital, for reconstruction and development.

7
they do best, and warned of them becoming ‘overloaded’ with other post-conflict
needs. These should be addressed instead by accompanying programmes for all war-
affected populations. The DDR programmes should however be linked to these
broader programmes, especially for reintegration (UN, 2005).

Wherever the lines of responsibility are drawn, coherence is required at least at the
level of objectives and of planning, even if implementation, monitoring and other
matters are done by different agencies. The actors which remain constant, however,
are the beneficiaries, and their involvement in the process and sense of ownership are
all the more important as different agencies enter and leave the stage.

The development of best practice in DDR

A growing body of guides, manuals, and best practice has been developed on DDR in
recent years, and they have given increasing attention to the need for an integrated
view of DDR, national ownership of the process, and a participatory approach. One
project which brought together a wide range of practitioners, donors and researchers
to review best practice was the Stockholm Initiative on DDR (SIDDR, 2006).

An even more comprehensive guide and field manual which addresses many of these
issues is the Integrated DDR Standards (IDDRS) (2006) which was launched by the
UN Secretary General December 2006. It amounts to a significant initiative to
promote an integrated approach between UN agencies and other actors in the DDR
process.

Donor coordination and the effect of funding gaps

The SIDDR (2005: 10) notes that although DDR is ‘an important part of the political
process, it has continued to be divorced from political considerations and neglected as
a political tool of a peace process’. It adds however that since it is one of the few
sources of funding available in the immediate post-conflict situation, additional
objectives which are ‘impossible to achieve’ have been assigned to DDR, even though
funding for reintegration projects is often subject to delays.

8
Benefits which materialise for communities long after they have been seen to go to
ex-combatants can create resentment and undermine reconciliation. They should
therefore be seen by all stakeholders – from donors through to beneficiaries – as a
direct complement to the DDR programme. This means that funding gaps must be
avoided, by establishing a mechanism for community programming in parallel with
that for DDR.

Funding gaps like these indicate that a genuinely participatory needs assessment has
not taken place, or has not been taken on board by planners and donors. Gaps in
funding have affected many DDR programmes, and this disruption in the timing of its
implementation can undermine the peace process (Spear, 2006). Delay can lead to
unrest in demobilisation camps, when anticipated benefits are not available. Liberia’s
problems with funding arose when three times more people presented for DDR than
had been expected (Carroll, 2003), raising concerns that some of them had never been
combatants in the first place.

Delays were also seen to have significant consequences at later stages of the
programme. The socio-economic situation for ex-combatants who registered for the
Liberian DDR but had not received any vocational training have been exposed in one
of the few quantitative studies4 in this area:

There is a major risk of leaving behind a very vulnerable

grouping of … registered ex-combatants – those who have
disarmed and demobilised but have yet to receive training. This
category of former fighters is the least educated, most
agriculturally oriented, and poorest of the four classes under
investigation. Most importantly, they have been shown to be the
least reintegrated of all categories under investigation.
(Pugel, 2006: 4)

Different types of participation

4
Pugel’s study (2006) compared ex-fighters who had completed a DDR programme, those who were
registered but had not completed it, and those who never took part. It found that those who had
completed the programme were more advanced in the process of reintegration and in a better position
generally.

9
Genuine participation by all the stakeholders is a key element in designing both DDR
programmes and transitional assistance measures, if priorities are to be defined from a
local perspective. This is essential for ensuring that the issues being addressed reflect
the genuine needs of ex-combatants and communities which are being asked to
receive them. Meaningful participation is also important in ensuring effective
implementation of programmes, which will in any case face unexpected challenges,
and which rely on the goodwill of many local actors.

Assessment: The Operational Guide to IDDRS (2006: 67-71) gives detailed guidance
on carrying out an assessment as part of the planning process for DDR, and this
includes participatory assessments carried out by beneficiaries. It includes those in
rural settings, with the help of a facilitator, as well as women, youth and children,
whose input can often be overlooked.

M&E: The process of monitoring and evaluation is different from assessment, and
generally takes place once a programme is underway or completed. However,
experience of Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E) in a weapons
collection context is relevant, and the process has been described in detail by
Mugumya in Mali (2004a), Albania (2004b), and Cambodia (2005).

Participation at various levels

The question of participation arises at national, local and community level. The
aspects of participation at each of these levels are set out in the following table.

10
Table 1: Identification of possible variables

Level Structures Indicators of Hypothesised

participation dependent
variable
(independent
variable) Items marked
with a * may also
be considered an
intervening
variable

National – political National Commission Involvement of Political buy-in.*

level on DDR prime minister and
relevant ministers; Sense of ownership
range of former (applies to all
adversaries involved levels)*
Better
implementation of
peace agreement.*
Reduction in number
and effectiveness of
spoilers.*

National – Secretariat to National Good links to other Relevant and

implementing level Commission, or other stakeholders sustainable
implementing body programming
(applies to all levels
below this also)*

Regional Regional politicians As above.

and administrators
Better planning for
economic
reintegration in
particular.

Community Consultation etc of Reduction in

host communities in resentment, or
particular. perception of unfair
treatment.
Involvement of
women and youth Economic initiatives
(often excluded). better planned.*
Use of traditional Benefits of economic
healing rituals. reintegration more
widely shared.*
Greater capacity in
local community (to
deal with economic
issues, for example)

11
Ex-combatants and Consultation during More effective and
those associated Demobilisation sustainable economic
with armed groups phase. and social
reintegration.
Participation in
decisions about Reconciliation
economic facilitated.*
reintegration (e.g.
about training Return to conflict
opportunities) less likely.

Realistic Effects of trauma

understanding of lessened at
what benefits they community and
are entitled to. individual level.*

Knowing who their Lower level of re-

point of contact is. recruitment to
armed groups (esp
Individual Participation through regarding regional
local community conflicts).
structures and through
specific groups (for
farmers, women,
youth, business
people, etc).

Why participation matters

The benefits of participatory DDR include:

Building long term national capacity for reintegration and therefore
development;
Dealing with perceptions that those with guns are being rewarded, and the poor
example which that sets in terms of governance and accountability in the post-
conflict era;
Enhancing the sense of ownership at national and community level, rather than
dependency;
More consistent services marginalised groups such as children, women, and the
disabled;
Promoting reconciliation and acceptance of ex-combatants, where the whole
community can see that it benefits from the process in its entirety;
Promoting sustainability in both the DDR process and post-conflict recovery
programming, by finding ways in which they reinforce each other;
Supporting implementation of the peace agreement, by reducing the scope for
spoilers through an effective and sustainable DDR programme, and encouraging
the wider community to ‘buy in’ to the process.

12
Local ownership
One of the aspects of a participatory approach is the greater sense of ownership
among stakeholders, and their belief in the process. This can be fostered by a
participatory approach, or destroyed by one which excludes or alienates them. Such
exclusion can arise quite unintentionally, and it can have repercussions for various
groups’ attitudes to the peace process and reconciliation. An opportunity to listen to
the fears and perspectives of, for example, a local community or a group of
demobilising fighters, is a key moment. Even if the course of action remains
unchanged, the feeling of having been listened to has a bearing on attitudes to a policy
– while the sense that one’s opinion has not been heard will worsen any disaffection.

Maintaining a focus on participatory process and recognising that

the ‘how’ is often more important than the ‘what’ – Participatory
processes can render civilian and co-operative life within
communities a more attractive option than engaging in war and
violence. Processes to determine, for example, rural development
programmes, security sector reform or other governance-related
initiatives can in themselves facilitate a transition from social
exclusion and unpredictable clientelism to a system based on
institutionalised relationships and transparency over aims,
budgets and methods
(Bell and Watson, 2006: 5).

The question of ownership is also highlighted in a review of the demobilisation

programme in Kosovo, which recommends:

If KPC [Kosovo Protection Corps] members are not to feel

totally dependant on the international community, there needs to
be an effective involvement in the reconstruction process that
enables them to share in the rebuilding of their ‘motherland’
(Barakat and Özerdem, 2005: 247).

Marginalised groups
Certain groups are at risk of being marginalised during the DDR process unless their
situation is given specific attention. There are many reasons why specific attention
needs to be paid to women and to children who have been associated with armed
groups, for example, through a participatory approach.

13
Firstly, despite recent efforts, the international and national organisations may simply
overlook the particular needs of children and women, since in most cultures these
people are less likely to be heard. Secondly, women and children in any case have
particular needs, and have had particular experiences in the course of the conflict.
Thirdly, they face additional challenges in rehabilitation and reintegrating socially,
due to higher levels of abuse during the conflict and stigma on return. And finally,
evidence so far shows that women and children of both sexes have not benefited from
DDR programmes to the same extent as others (Specht, 2006: 87–96; de Watteville,
2002; McKay and Mazurana, 2004; Bouta, 2005; Brett and Specht, 2004).

Another group which may be regarded as marginalised are those ex-combatants who
are disabled, presumably as a result of the conflict. They will have extra needs, and
face additional challenges in establishing a new livelihood. Family support networks,
where this is possible, may be an important part of the equation.

Information campaigns, expectations and resentment

One of the key aspects of participation is effective communication, and a mutual

understanding of each groups needs. Naturally this involves a timely flow of accurate
information in both directions. Part of this equation involves effective information
campaigns directed at ex-combatants and local communities. The need to
communicate effectively has been highlighted in Liberia, where significant
proportions of these groups were labouring under misapprehensions about the benefits
they were entitled to, with all the attendant dangers of resentment over timing or
unrealistic expectations (UNDP, 2005b).

Resentment can be driven by the perception of what incentives are available for other
groups, even more than the reality. A well-planned information campaign can be
important, as an element of participation. In fact, DDR without an effective
communications or public awareness strategy can have ‘disastrous’ consequences,
according to Muggah (2005):

14
 The pursuit of DDR in West Africa and the Philippines has
shown how the mismanagement of expectations and inadequate
preparation for disarmament generated counterproductive, even
lethal, outcomes. In Liberia more than three times the anticipated
number of claimants demanded ‘reintegration’ benefits and rioted
when turned away. Similarly, a reintegration industry has been
spawned in Mindanao, where international agencies such as the
UNDP and USAID continue to support tens of thousands more
MNLF excombatants and dependants than are believed to exist
(Muggah, 2005: 246-247).

An information programme should therefore aim to:

1. Manage the expectations of what each group can expect to receive;
2. Ensure accurate information about what incentives are actually provided for
other groups (since antipathy can lead to highly exaggerated perceptions about
other groups’ benefits, fuelling further resentment);
3. Explain the rationale for disparities, and the possible community-wide or long
term benefit from targeting ex-combatants;
4. Help to bring transparency and local accountability to the process.
The way such a campaign is conducted is of course important, and it is essential not to
promise benefits which do not arise. Appropriate styles of communication are
required, as well as genuine participation in the planning process for community
benefits.5

Local communities and how to include them

One of the main advantages of a participatory approach to DDR is that this inevitably
draws in the communities which are being asked to accept ex-combatants to live
among them. The importance of involving communities is being increasingly
recognised, even though this raises many challenges for international actors

From an economic perspective, it is among communities that ex-combatants will

attempt to forge a new livelihood: the community provides the employers, the market,
and context for making a new life. It is essential, therefore, that their voice is heard

5
An interesting discussion about an enhanced public information campaign as part of peace operations
in West Africa is contained in Hunt (2006).

15
early on in the assessment and planning process, at a stage and in a way which allows
them to have an influence the outcome. It can help to identify precarious local
economic activities which may be disrupted or damaged by providing certain types of
assistance to ex-combatants during reintegration. It is also required at during
implementation, and during any ongoing monitoring and evaluation. It helps to
establish the legitimacy of the programming and implementers.

Unless they join new state services, fulltime education, or are re-recruited for other
conflicts, ex-combatants will ultimately seek to reintegrate economically into the rest
of society. Whether this is urban or rural, and regardless of whether it is their place of
origin or another area, they will be interacting with people who may also be war-
affected, but who have been treated differently by the international community. The
development of new livelihoods, social reintegration, and reconciliation will all be
affected by the way these ex-combatants and the receiving community interact. How
the international agencies have treated that community in comparison with those who
carried guns in the conflict will have a major bearing on that process.

One particular aspect which should be included in assessments of the post-conflict

political economy and labour market is existing economic activity which could be
undermined by the reintegration of ex-combatants with training and support for small
businesses.

A model being used by the World Bank which is relevant is Community-Driven

Development (CDD). According to Specht (2007: 36), it is ‘a particularly useful
approach in receiving communities where both physical and social structures have
deteriorated and institutional capacity is minimal.’

The risks of an incentive programme which only includes ex-combatants include:

Creating a marked imbalance in support available to ex-combatants and
civilians;
Resentment among the receiving communities due to such an imbalance,
whether real or perceived;

16
 Rejection, or less likelihood of acceptance, of ex-combatants due to community
resentment;
Increased tension over the many unresolved issues of transitional justice and
impunity which may already exist, as a result of perceived unfairness of
incentives for ex-combatants.

Attempting to provide equivalent benefits for non-combatants may not be practical or

appropriate, given the different needs of this group and the resources available. Good
programme design and correctly targeted interventions can help, however. They
include:
a) Providing incentives for non-combatants at a community level rather than
individual level, by providing infrastructure such as water-points, community
buildings, or roads;
b) Finding incentives which specifically address the difficulties which
communities face in absorbing ex-combatants, such as housing or land issues.
(Identification of these future needs by each community should be integrated
into the initial assessment process);
c) Providing benefits to ex-combatants on a cash (or food) for work basis, where
the work results in something which is felt by the community to be useful.
(Participatory planning, with inclusion of women in the process, is of course
required to ensure that such projects are indeed of interest to the community);

Where appropriate, such projects could involve both community members and ex-
combatants working together on the same scheme, as a way of promoting
reconciliation and rehabilitation. This has been described by Vencovsky (2006) in
Liberia and the DRC.6

6
Vencovsky cites some examples: ‘In addition to examples mentioned earlier, in southeastern Liberia a
Danish Refugee Council project engaged a group of 4 500 people in reconstruction efforts. This group
comprised both ex-combatants (60 percent) and unemployed civilians (40 percent). DDRR in the DRC
introduced the ComRec scheme, a United Nations Development Project (UNDP)-managed project that
gives funding to ex-combatants. The idea is for the ex-fighters to organise themselves and, with the
help of local nongovernmental organisations (NGO), design business ideas in the area of reconstruction
of local communities. These projects are then funded from the ComRec budget. ComRec embraces
many approaches already mentioned: it is community-based, promotes reconciliation and offers the
opportunity for a business start-up. It is, however, hampered by insufficient capacity on the part of local
NGOs and ex-combatants themselves.’ (Vencovsky, 2006: 41).

17
This involves considerable challenges, as it requires coordination with a further layer
of actors, from communities to implementers to donors. The essential element,
however, is not necessarily to implement simultaneously, but to coordinate from the
planning and assessment stage onwards.

The situation can of course be complicated by the fact that ‘receiving communities’
may not be stable entities, and can be affected by returns and other post-conflict
population movements.
Capacity building of CBOs and LNGOs is necessary
Civil society groups are a rich source of expertise, with access to informal networks
and information at national, local and community level (Dzinesa, 2006). Nevertheless,
they are easily overlooked by international NGOs and IGOs. This exclusion can arise
even when the international agency concerned is openly committed to working in
partnership with national actors and civil society. The fact that internationally-
connected agencies often control access to resources remains a factor in this
relationship: agencies which like to think of themselves as working in partnership are
well aware that it is an asymmetric relationship. The fact that there can be a high
turnover of international staff also has an impact on the level of participation. The
very real time pressures in rolling out a DDR programme, and undertaking short term
emergency or rehabilitation work, also makes meaningful consultation more difficult.

UNDDRS structure for national and international actors

Participation can be addressed at national, local and community level. The IDDRS
proposes a complex structure to marry up the wide range of international agencies
with various national structures. These have the aim of promoting national ownership
and generating political will. It proposes a body which is usually called the National
Commission on DDR (NCDDR), headed if possible by the prime minister as an
indication of national ‘buy in’ to the process, with involvement by ministers who deal
with relevant areas, such as labour. In addition there is a national DDR agency, or
secretariat to the Commission, which deals with implementation. On the international
side, overall responsibility for all UN agencies usually rests with the Special
Representative of the Secretary General (SRSG), and there also a coordinating body
for the international agencies. The two sides come together formally in Joint

18
Implementation Unit (JIU). The structure is set out in the Operational Guide to the
IDDRS, from which the following figure is taken:

Figure 1: Model for national DDR institutional framework proposed by IDDRS.7

The support of the Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice, in the form of the Jesuit
Solidarity Scholarship, is gratefully acknowledged. The assistance of Trócaire and its
staff in head office and West Africa has also been of great help in furthering this
research project.

7
Figure taken from Operational Guide to the IDDRS, 2006, (Figure 3.30.1, Section 3.30, p. 83)

19
Bibliography

Barakat, Sultan and Alpaslan Özerdem (2005) ‘Reintegration of Former Combatants:

with specific reference to Kosovo’, in Sultan Barakat (ed) After the Conflict:
Reconstruction and Development in the Aftermath of War, London and New York:
I B Tauris.

Bell, Edward and Charlotte Watson (2006) DDR: Supporting Security and
Development: The EU’s added value, London: International Alert, September.

Berdal, Mats R (1996) Disarmament, and Demobilisation after Civil Wars, Adelphi
Paper 303, Oxford: Oxford University Press (for the International Institute for
Strategic Studies).

Bouta, Tsjeard (2005) ‘Gender and Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration:

Building Blocs for Dutch Policy’, The Hague: Conflict Research Unit,
Clingendael.

Brett, Rachel and Irma Specht (2004) Young Soldiers: Why They Choose To Fight,
Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

Carroll, Rory (2003) ‘Guns for cash offer swamped’, The Guardian, 17 December
2003 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/westafrica/story/0,13764,1108395,00.html,
accessed 17 Jan 2007).

Chambers, Robert (1997) Whose reality counts? Putting the first last, London:
Intermediate Technology Publications.

Chambers, Robert (1998) Challenging the professions: frontiers for rural

development, London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Colletta, Nat J., Marcus Kostner, and Ingo Wiederhofer (1996) The Transition from
War to Peace in Sub-Saharan Africa, Washington D.C: World Bank.

de Watteville, Nathalie (2002) ‘Addressing Gender Issues in Demobilization and

Reintegration Programs’, Africa Region Working Paper Series No. 33,
Washington DC: World Bank.

Dzinesa, Gwinyayi Albert (2006) ‘A Participatory Approach to DDR: Empowering

Local Institutions and Abilities’, Conflict Trends, 3, 2006, p. 39–43.

Gomes Porto, João and Imogen Parsons (2003) Sustaining Peace in Angola: An
Overview of Current Demobilisation, Disarmament and Reintegration, (Paper
27), Bonn: Bonn International Center for Conversion.

Hunt, Charlie (2006) ‘Public Information as a Mission Critical Component of West

African Peace Operations’, Conflict Trends, No. 3, 2006, p. 32–38.

Integrated Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration Standards (IDDRS),

(2006) New York: United Nations (1 August 2006 version), (www.unddr.org,
accessed 2 Feb 2007).

20
Lost Children (2005) documentary film, written and directed by Ali Samadi Ahadi and
Oliver Stoltz), Berlin: Dreamer Joint Venture Filmproduktion GmbH (www.lost-
children.de).

McKay, Susan and Dyan Mazurana (2004) Where are Girls? Girls in Fighting Forces
in Northern Uganda, Sierra Leone and Mozambique: Their Lives During and
After War, Montreal: Rights & Democracy (International Centre for Human
Rights and Democratic Development).

Muggah, Robert (2005) ‘No Magic Bullet: A Critical Perspective on Disarmament,

Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) and Weapons Reduction in Post-
conflict Contexts’, The Round Table, Vol. 94, No. 379, Apr 2005, p. 239–252.

Mugumya, Geofrey (2004a) Exchanging Weapons for Development in Mali: Weapon

Collection Programmes Assessed by Local People, UNIDIR/2004/16, Geneva:
UN Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR).

Mugumya, Geofrey (2004b) From Exchanging Weapons for Development to Security

Sector Reform in Albania: Gaps and Grey Areas in Weapon Collection
Programmes Assessed by Local People, UNIDIR/2004/19, Geneva: UN Institute
for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR).

Mugumya, Geofrey (2005) Exchanging Weapons for Development in Cambodia: An

Assessment of Weapon Collection Strategies by Local People, UNIDIR/2005/6,
Geneva: UN Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR).

Operational Guide to the Integrated Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration

Standards (IDDRS) (2006) New York: United Nations, (1 August 2006 version),
(www.unddr.org, accessed 29 Jan 2007).

Pugel, James (2006) ‘Key Findings from the Nation Wide Survey of Ex-combatants in
Liberia: Reintegration and Reconciliation’, Monrovia: UNDP Liberia Joint
Implementation Unit (JIU), February-March 2006.

Spear, Joanna (2006) ‘From Political Economies of War to Political Economies of

Peace: The Contribution of DDR after Wars of Predation’, Contemporary
Security Policy, Vol 27, No 1, April 2006, p. 168–189.

Specht, Irma (2006) Red Shoes: Experiences of girl-combatants in Liberia, Geneva:

International Labour Office.

Specht, Irma (2007) ‘Socio-Economic Profiling and Opportunity Mapping Pack’,

prepared for UNDPKO and Norwegian Defence International Centre
(NODEFIC), Landgraaf: Transition International, 2007.

Stockholm Initiative on Disarmament Demobilisation Reintegration (SIDDR) (2006)

‘Final Report’, Stockholm: Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Sweden
(www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/06/43/56/cf5d851b.pdf, accessed 24 April
2006).

21
UN (2005) Freetown Conference urges improvements in disarmament,
demobilization, reintegration programmes in Africa, 2005, UN Press Release,
AFR/1199, DC/2972, 23 June 2005
(http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/HMYT-
6DNMFR?OpenDocument&rc=1&emid=SKAR-64FB9M, accessed 7 July
2005).

UN Secretary-General (2005) note to the General Assembly, A/C.5/59/31, 24 May

2005

UN Secretary-General (2006) Disarmament, demobilization and reintegration, Report

of the Secretary-General to UN General Assembly, A/60/705, 2 March 2006.

UNDP (2005a) Practice Note: Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration of

Ex-combatants, New York: UNDP.

UNDP (2005b) Taking RR to the People, National Information and Sensitization

Campaign Field Report, Monrovia: Information and Sensitization Unit, UNDP
Liberia.

Vencovsky, Daniel (2006) ‘Economic Reintegration of Ex Combatants, Conflict

Trends, No. 4, 2006, p. 36–41.

22