Dr Walt Kilroy Institute for International Conflict Resolution and Reconstruction

1. Can programmes for reintegrating ex-combatants be implemented in a participatory way? Evidence from Liberia Dr Walt Kilroy Institute for International Conflict Resolution and Reconstruction Dublin City University walt.kilroy@dcu.ie Combatants from MODEL lining up to surrender their weapons as part of the DDR process in Liberia in 2004. (Photo: IRIN) The support of the Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice and Trócaire is gratefully acknowledged. Postdoctoral Fellowship funded by:

2. DisarmamentDemobilisationReintegration “Disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes are often at the nexus of peacekeeping, post-conflict peacebuilding and development” - UN Secretary General’s report on DDR to General Assembly (2006: 8)

3. DisarmamentDemobilisationReintegration DisarmamentDemobilisationReintegration • Disarmament is the collection, documentation, control and disposal of arms and ammunition. - UN Secretary General (2006) Surrendered arms stored under UN peacekeepers’ supervision Bunia, Democratic Republic of Congo, May 2005

4. DisarmamentDemobilisationReintegration • Demobilization is the formal and controlled discharge of active combatants from armed forces or other armed groups. UN Secretary General (2006) • Involves registration in camps, and immediate support packages. Registration of ex-combatantsBunia, Democratic Republic of Congo May 2005

5. DisarmamentDemobilisationReintegration 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. - UN Secretary General (2006) Bunia, Democratic Republic of Congo May 2005 5

6. DDR as an integral part of the peace process • Usually part of final peace agreement • Does not make agreement inevitable • Can be halted by return to hostilities • ‘...an interplay, a subtle interaction, between the dynamics of a peace process’ and how DDR is implemented (Berdal, 1996: 73)

7. What works well – and doesn’t Interaction with peace process Building of confidence Reduction in arms Children’s reintegration and rehabilitation Women face greater problems in reintegrating, but are not catered for well in DDR programmes Gaps in funding, delays in providing benefits Finding livelihoods for ex-combatants 7

8. DDR in Africa since 1990 Eritrea Sudan Sierra Leone Ethiopia Côte d’Ivoire Liberia Burundi DRC Angola Namibia KEY: Early cases Recent Underway/proposed Mozambique

9. Participation: What is it? Chambers (1985, 1997) Concept still evolving, and is not uncontested Genuine involvement of beneficiaries in all stages of the programme cycle: Deciding on needs Planning interventions Implementing them Monitoring Evaluating the programme Usually based in more stable communities than post-conflict environments Highlights important questions such as power, agency, decision-making, and communication Can be regarded as a scale, such as Pretty’s (1995) seven-level ladder 9

10. “Ladder of participation” adapted from Pretty (1995) 11

11. Research questions • How participatory was the reintegration programme? • Did greater participation have any effect in terms of programme outcomes? • What factors might hinder or facilitate participation?

12. Research methods - Liberia • Part of larger study together with Sierra Leone (2007-10) • Semi-structured interviews with a range of stakeholders • Survey of ex-combatants (n=98) • Purposive sampling • Focus group discussions of ex-combatants (5) • Rural, semi-urban, and urban settings

13. Key themes from Focus Groups Word frequency (www.wordle.net) • Life is very hard (economically) • Problems with quality and duration of training • No jobs result, even if the training is completed • Broken promises • Inaccurate information re the DDR programme • Little input to decisions on the programme, apart from training/education options • Delayed, reduced, or misappropriated benefits • Corruption and cheating • Lack of confidence in the programme 14

14. Key themes from Focus Groups Life is very hard (economically) Problems with quality and duration of training No jobs result, even if the training is completed Broken promises Inaccurate information re the DDR programme Little input to decisions on the programme, apart from training/education options Delayed, reduced, or misappropriated benefits Corruption and cheating Lack of confidence in the programme 15

15. Strong feelings about accuracy • “Up to now we are in great darkness... You have been trained, [but] there is nothing to show like a certificate. I think they just came to fool us in the bush.” - Focus Group J, Lawalazu, Lofa County • “The people lied to us. The people lied.” - Focus Group M, Monrovia

16. “What would you avoid doing?” • “Do not create high hopes and expectations.” • “Avoid saying [promising] everything” • “Building up false hopes” • “Avoid empty promises” • “Lying to people, false impression” • “Making bogus promises” • “Avoid deceit” • “Marginalizing and duping the target group[s].” Selected responses to Question J3 17

17. Why was there disappointment?

19. “Yes, it was explained to [us], but it was not implemented.” • Focus Group J, Lawalazu, Lofa County • “Some of it was lies because what they told us, some was true, some was not true. They told us that during the training we would be given soap money [stipend]. As for me, the place I took my training, they didn’t give a cent for soap money.” • Focus Group K, Lawalazu, Lofa County

21. Nature of dissatisfaction • Stipend • Quality of training • Certificate not provided • Toolkits not provided • Workshop not built

22. No more than generalised disaffection? • Complaints in focus groups about stipends were specific included • Complete non-payment • Delays in payment or early cessation • Amount less than promised • Having to share benefits with administrators • Stipends being diverted to non-ex-combatants • But no complaints about the amount • Therefore it is not about maximising benefits. It is about: • The “deal” or new social contract • Trust • New relationships • Rebuilding social capital • All of these are fundamental to wider peacebuilding project

26. Are we just measuring disaffection?

27. Why there are obstacles • Views of those implementing the programme • Timescale • Security concerns • Capacity constraints • Importing a solution

28. KEY *** p<0.01 ** p<0.05 Tests used: I: Individual regression analysis (variable on its own, with control variables) G: Grouped regression analysis (together with all other dependent variables) F: Fisher’s exact test, or in the case of Days Worked, analysis of variance (ANOVA).

29. Actualreintegration outcomes Context in which these processes take place: social capital Participation and ownership View of reintegration programme View of peace process as a whole

30. Experience of trust Assumptions about others Inferred rules of governance and social contract Participation and social capital

31. Conclusions Ladder of participation is a useful tool for analysing reintegration: Power Agency Social capital Only lower rungs of ladder are reached – at times Many obstacles, especially time constraints Children’s programmes showed more participation Greater participation linked to better outcomes Work Economic situation Community relations So what? The way DDR is implemented does matter Affects the way DDR and its specific outputs relate to the overall peace process 33