•  
    •  
    • Press Contact

    • For information regarding BCSP activities please contact our Communications Officer

      Dragana Belanovic +381646479097

      dragana.belanovic@bezbednost.org

       

    •  
    •  
    • Info BCSP

    • Sign up to receive our e-bulletin.
    •  
    •  
    •  
     
    • Institutions’ representatives have tested Centre’s methodology of measuring progress in security sector reform

    •  
    • Date: 12 March 2011

      After several months of work on collecting and analyzing data depicting the state of democratic governance of security sector in Serbia, the Belgrade Centre for Security Policy has consulted representatives of the institutions on the methodology of measuring and the first main findings. In the second round of professional consultations, held in Vrsac, from 9 to 11 March, researchers of the Centre together with 20 representatives from government institutions tested the methodology of measuring security sector reform utilizing interactive and engaging workshops. All of the institutions which were present have previously answered the questionnaires with the aim to extend knowledge accumulated through initial research done solely by using publicly available sources.

      The fact that progress of the whole security sector instead of individual actors is presented, might be the greatest value of model offered by BCSP, and this is, as understood by participants “the single most important thing for citizens”. The index of SSR could also serve as a corrective instrument pointing to Government’s mistakes and wrong approaches in implementing the reform. Finally, methodology suggested by the Centre should help institutions in order to define criteria for assessing their own success.

      Although in the 2008 edition of the Yearbook we highlighted how the first generation of security sector reform has been finalized, several dilemmas and “grey zones of reform” remained. During the workshops, it was noticed that there is a gap between requirements for classification of data now required by a record number of government institutions and the “public (citizens’) right to know”. Many questions were raised on the role played by the Council for National Security, its organization, financing and composition. Finally, many asked how can one measure is the security sector integrated or not. While participants commended the cooperation among institutions in combating organized crime, terrorism, and integrated border management, they criticized the lack of cooperation in management of civil emergencies.

      Researchers from the Centre and the representatives of the government institutions agreed on grades awarded to security sector institutions. They were all interested in finding the best models for shaping the recommendations for decision makers. In the final workshop, we asked participants what they would do if facing bad or corruptive practice.

      Few issues with our methodology were however raised. It was pointed out that more attention should be given to the individual institutions. It was also noticed that it is hard to define which criteria is the most important. Finally, concerns were expressed about the implementation of numeric grading.

      Organization of the second round of consultations was supported by Geneva DCAF and Fund for an Open Society.

      Related topics:centre, method, vrsac
    •  
    • Post a comment

    •  
    •  
    • See all comments

    •  
    •