office of the coordinator for reconstruction and stabilization (s/crs)
DESCRIPTION
Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS). Forging a Whole of Government Approach to R&S Operations. The United States has been involved in or contributed significant resources to more than 17 post-conflict operations since the end of the Cold War. 2. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS)
Forging a Whole of Government Approach to R&S Operations
2
The United States has been involved in or contributed significant resources to more than 17 post-conflict operations since the end of the Cold War.
.2
3
2500
1000
2000
1500
0
500
Hostile Deaths
-Non- Hostile Deaths
Major Combat Operations
Hostile Deaths
-Non-Hostile Deaths
Stability Operations
Major Combat Operations vs. Stability Operations 1990- 2006
U.S. Casualty Comparison
U.S
. Mili
tary
Per
son
nel
Dea
ths
• Stability Operations take Stability Operations take place in hostile environmentsplace in hostile environments
• Number of U.S. military Number of U.S. military deaths in stability operations deaths in stability operations over six times that of major over six times that of major combat operationscombat operations
• Stability Operations take Stability Operations take place in hostile environmentsplace in hostile environments
• Number of U.S. military Number of U.S. military deaths in stability operations deaths in stability operations over six times that of major over six times that of major combat operationscombat operations
$300
$150
$250
$200
$50
$100
Major Combat Incremental Costs
Cost Comparison
Major Combat Operations vs. Stability Operations 1990- 2006
Bill
ion
s o
f F
Y0
4 d
oll
ars
Stability OperationsIncremental Costs
• In the last 15 years, the U.S. In the last 15 years, the U.S. has spent over five times as has spent over five times as much on stability operations much on stability operations compared to major combatcompared to major combat
• In the last 15 years, the U.S. In the last 15 years, the U.S. has spent over five times as has spent over five times as much on stability operations much on stability operations compared to major combatcompared to major combat
Stability Operations have Cost Blood and Treasure
4
UNCLASSIFIED
National Security Presidential Directive 44: Management of Interagency Efforts Concerning S&R
December 2005
Goal: “To promote the security of the United States through improved coordination, planning and implementation of stabilization and reconstruction assistance.”
Scope: “Foreign states and regions at risk of, in, or in transition from conflict or civil strife.”
Key Elements: The Secretary of State (may delegate to S/CRS) will:
Coordinate and lead integrated USG efforts, involving all relevant Departments and Agencies with relevant capabilities, to prepare, plan for, and conduct S&R activities;
Coordinate USG responses for S&R with SecDef to ensure harmonization with any planned or ongoing U.S. military operations…at the planning and implementation phases; develop guiding precepts and implementation procedures for R&S;
Lead USG development of a strong civilian response capability; analyze, formulate, and recommend additional authorities, mechanisms, and resources needed to ensure that the US has civilian reserve and response capabilities necessary for S&R activities to respond quickly and effectively.
5
Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS)*United States Department of State
Coordinator Amb. John Herbst
Deputy Coordinator for Conflict Prevention and Outreach
Principal Deputy Coordinator for Civilian Response,
Planning and Management
Office of StrategicCommunications
Legislative Strategy
Diplomatic Strategy
Public Affairs
AcademicOutreach
Office of Conflict Prevention
Early Warning
F AssistanceLiaison
Office of CivilianReadiness
and ResponseOffice of Planning
Operations Support
Planning and Operations
Management
Civilian – MilitaryAffairs
Sectoral ExpertiseAnd Best Practices
Office ofResource
Management
General Services
FinancialManagement
Human Resources
InformationTechnology
Senior MilitaryAdvisor
DOD AssistanceLiaison
U.S. Civilian Reserve Home
Office
ARC/SRC
Training
AUGUST 2007
6
Mission: To lead, coordinate and institutionalize U.S. Government civilian capacity to prevent or prepare for post-conflict situations, and to help stabilize and reconstruct societies in transition from conflict or civil strife so they can reach a sustainable path toward peace, democracy and a market economy.
Created July 2004 88 interagency staff, including 11 Active Response Corps (ARC) members 4 whole-of-government strategic planning engagements
• Kosovo, Sudan, Haiti, and Cuba (CAFC); • Civ-Mil PRT planning in Afghanistan
Rapid Response Deployments to 8 countries Exercises
• Blue Advance 2006-2008, Unified Quest, Joint Venture 2006 (United Kingdom), Multi-National Experiments 4 and 5, Unified Action, Civilian Venture 2007 (United Kingdom), Certain Trust
Interagency Management System to Organize USG Civilian Response Whole of Government Planning Framework Essential Task Matrix (ETM) Compiling Best Practices for R&S Developing common R&S Training for Civilians and Military FY 09 Budget Request: $249 Million to build Robust USG Civilian Response
Capability
S/CRS in a Snapshot
Effective U.S. Government R&S Efforts Effective U.S. Government R&S Efforts
PREPARE:TRAIN: Seven new R&S training courses are being offered for civilians and military at
the Foreign Service Institute; and an integrated training strategy is being developed.
EXERCISE: The R&S PCC is driving a joint exercise strategy for R&S operations that tests the new USG capabilities (planning process, operations management system). Blue Advance 2008 was the most robust exercise of the IMS and planning process to date.
CIVILIAN CAPACITY: The Civilian Stabilization Initiative proposed in FY 2009 will create an interagency Active and Standby Response Corps and build a U.S. Civilian Reserve Corps.
PLAN: The U.S. Government Planning Framework for R&S integrates planning across all agencies. In March 2007 the Executive Branch approved a “Triggers Paper” on whole-of-government planning for R&S.
CONDUCT: The Interagency Management System for R&S, approved by the Executive Branch in March 2007, provides a new three-tiered system to manage interagency planning and operations for reconstruction and stabilization.
Since 2005, 15 agencies have worked to implement the Presidential Directive “Management of Interagency Efforts Concerning Stabilization and Reconstruction” - ensuring all agencies, civilian
and military, are ready to comprehensively approach this new national security challenge.
8
•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.
•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.
Meeting the Challenge of R&SMeeting the Challenge of R&S
Common Past Reconstruction & Stabilization ChallengesCommon Past Reconstruction & Stabilization Challenges
•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.
•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.
Meeting the Challenge of R&S: PlanningMeeting the Challenge of R&S: Planning
Common Past Reconstruction & Stabilization ChallengesCommon Past Reconstruction & Stabilization Challenges
USG USG
Planning Planning
Framework Framework
for R&S for R&S
USG USG
Planning Planning
Framework Framework
for R&S for R&S
• Common operating picture • Assessment of conflict
dynamics • Development of policy
options with risks and costs • Clear, achievable whole-of-
government policy goal• Integrated, cross-sectoral
strategies applying all elements of national power
• Common metrics and assessment process
Conflict Transformation
Strong
Weak
Large-scale intervention
Goal
Lead passed to local actorsTime
Strength
The USG should focus all elements of the intervention on transforming the dynamics of the conflict in a manageable timeframe.
- Reduce the drivers of conflict and instability- Strengthen legitimate local institutional capacity
Tipping point on the trajectory to viable peace
.
.
.
Supporting &
Feedback
A New Planning Framework for R&S A New Planning Framework for R&S
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
F
ield
W
ash
ing
ton
Interagency Implementation PlanInteragency-crafted sub-objective concepts; synchronization and
prioritization of Agency activities over time and space; monitoring and revision
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
ActivityActivity
Activity
TasksTasks
TasksActivity
ActivityActivity
TasksTasks
Tasks
DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLANS & EXECUTION
12
Whole-of-Government R&S Planning with the IMS Whole-of-Government R&S Planning with the IMS
OVERARCHING POLICY GOALThe overall objective, stated as an outcome, that the U.S. Government (as a whole) would like to achieve and is capable of achieving with the resources available and in a specified timeframe.
Subgoal 1: A more specific and textured statement of the overarching policy goal.Subgoal 2: Subgoal 3:
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
OVERARCHING POLICY GOALThe overall objective, stated as an outcome, that the U.S. Government (as a whole) would like to achieve and is capable of achieving with the resources available and in a specified timeframe.
Subgoal 1: A more specific and textured statement of the overarching policy goal.Subgoal 2: Subgoal 3:
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
Three Levels of Three Levels of Planning: Planning:
(1)(1) Policy Formulation Policy Formulation
(2)(2) Strategy Strategy DevelopmentDevelopment
(3)(3) Implementation Implementation PlanningPlanning
Situation Analysis Overview
Policy Advisory
Memo
R&S USG Strategic Plan
Interagency Implementation Plan
Policy FormulationLed by CRSG Secretariat Strategic Planning Team
Implementation PlanningIn support of COM - Led by ACT Implementation Planning Team and Sub-Objective Teams
Proposed Revisions to Strategic Plan and
Interagency Implementation Plan
Plan ImplementationExecution, monitoring and reassessment
Deputies or Principals Committee
Issues Policy Statement
COM, then CRSG-PCC, Approves
Interagency Implementation
Plan
CRSG-PCC Approves R&S USG Strategic
Plan
Strategy DevelopmentIn support of CRSG - Led by Secretariat Strategic Planning Team and Major Mission Element Teams
COM, then CRSG-PCC,
Approve changes to the Strategic Plan
Crisis Response Planning Triggered
= Decision Point = Product
COM = Chief of MissionACT = Advance Civilian Team
CRSG = Country Reconstruction and Stabilization Group
•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.
•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.
Meeting the Challenge of R&S: Systems Meeting the Challenge of R&S: Systems
Common Past Reconstruction & Stabilization ChallengesCommon Past Reconstruction & Stabilization Challenges
Interagency Interagency
Management Management
System for System for
R&SR&S
Interagency Interagency
Management Management
System for System for
R&SR&S
• Approved in March 2007
• Provides a new system to manage interagency planning and operations
• Three-tiered to ensure unity of action at all levels (Washington, regional military HQ, field)
System designed to provide policymakers in Washington, COMs, and military commanders with flexible tools to achieve: • Integrated planning processes for unified USG strategic
and implementation plans, including funding requests; • Joint interagency field deployments; and, • A joint civilian operations capability including shared
communications and information management.
For highly complex crises and operations which are national or security priorities, involve widespread instability, may require military operations, and where multiple U.S. agencies will be engaged in the policy and programmatic response.
What is the IMS? What is the IMS?
Interagency Management System for Reconstruction and Stabilization (IMS):
15
Country Reconstruction& Stabilization Group
(CRSG)• Consists of 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
1. State Dept. Regional Assistant Secretary
2. S/CRS Coordinator
3. National Security Council Director
Country Reconstruction& Stabilization Group
(CRSG)• Consists of 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
1. State Dept. Regional Assistant Secretary
2. S/CRS Coordinator
3. National Security Council Director
A New Interagency Management System A New Interagency Management System
Integration Planning Cell (IPC)• Consists of 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
Integration Planning Cell (IPC)• Consists of 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
Field Advance Civilian Team
(FACT)
Field Advance Civilian Team
(FACT) Field Advance Civilian Team
(FACT)
Field Advance Civilian Team
(FACT) Field Advance Civilian Team
(FACT)
Field Advance Civilian Team
(FACT)
Advance Civilian Team (ACT)• 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
Advance Civilian Team (ACT)• 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
•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.
•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.
Meeting the Challenge of R&S: CapacitiesMeeting the Challenge of R&S: Capacities
Common Past Reconstruction & Stabilization ChallengesCommon Past Reconstruction & Stabilization Challenges
Civilian Civilian
Stabilization Stabilization
InitiativeInitiative
Civilian Civilian
Stabilization Stabilization
InitiativeInitiative
• Establishing Civilian Response Corps (Active, Standby, and Reserve) across 8 civilian agencies.
• H.R 1084 auth. passed House, pending Senate.
• $250M in State FY09 budget request (Civilian Stabilization Initiative).
• Build the U.S. Civilian Reserve Corps to 2000 in 2009
17
ACTIVE RESPONSE CORPS (ARC)
STANDBY RESPONSE CORPS
CIVILIAN RESERVE CORPS (CRC)
2-5 DAYS FOLLOWING CRISIS
• USG staff trained and ready to go in 48 hours to one week.
• Standing agency capacity for rapid response.
• Will assess situation, design response and begin R&S implementation
• USG employees
• Civilian agency employees who have ongoing job responsibilities but are trained and available for deployments.
• Deployable within 30 days for up to 180 days
• USG employees when mobilized
• Have regular jobs outside the USG
• Fully trained and deployable in 45-90 days
• Provide sector-specific Civilian Response expertise
Civilian Stabilization InitiativeCivilian Stabilization Initiative
250 New ARC
2000 identified SRC
2000 recruited CRC
The new Interagency Management System rapidly puts experts on the ground
30-45 45-90 2-5 Days
18
R&S Planning, operations and program management
R&S Planning, operations and program management
Criminal Justiceand PolicingCriminal Justiceand Policing
Economic RecoveryEconomic Recovery
Essential ServicesEssential Services
Diplomacy and GovernanceDiplomacy and Governance
Civilian Force ProtectionCivilian Force Protection
Who are the Active Response Corps?Who are the Active Response Corps?
State, Justice, Homeland Security, USAID•Civilian police, investigators, criminal justice, courts, corrections
State and US Agency for International Development (USAID)• Planners, logisticians, operations set-up, military liaison, assessment, local engagement
US Dept. of Agriculture, Treasury, Commerce, USAID•Agriculture, fiscal/monetary policy, banking, taxes, commercial law, business development
USAID and Health and Human Services•Public Health, education, infrastructure
State Diplomatic Security Agents•Security planners and officers
State and USAID•Human rights, governance, conflict mitigation, civil society/media,DDR
19
What is the Standby Response Corps?What is the Standby Response Corps?
Request: Training for Standby Response Corps members in FY09
$75.2 million request also provides for:
• 250 new Interagency ARC positions
• 8 weeks of ARC training
• Armored vehicles, communications and personal equipment
• Basic office support
The SRC is:
INTERAGENCY – employees from State, USAID, Justice, Commerce, Treasury, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security
VOLUNTARILY “ON CALL” – SRC members are “on call” to deploy from their current position, in support of a regional crisis or transition requiring a surge of US civilian expertise, with 30 days notice for up to 180 days
SPECIALIZED – SRC members have individual backgrounds related to R&S and hardship situations; sectoral and functional expertise; receive 2 weeks of R&S training per year
Currently there are 130 State SRC members supported by additional retirees. Currently there are 130 State SRC members supported by additional retirees. SRC experts have deployed to Sudan, Chad, Afghanistan, and civil-military SRC experts have deployed to Sudan, Chad, Afghanistan, and civil-military
training. With CSI, SRC would grow to 2000 in FY09.training. With CSI, SRC would grow to 2000 in FY09.
20
Composition of the First 500 CRC
21
Expert Personnel to provide rapid response oversight, management, programming and advisory capacity
Active and Standby Response Corps $75.2Training and EquipmentU.S. Civilian Reserve Corps $86.8Training and Equipment
Deployment Supportto put civilians on the ground quickly, protect and sustain them for first 60 days
Deploying and Sustaining US experts $41.5Civilian Force Protection $22.1
Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilizationto manage Washington coordination and leadership of R&S planning and operations and the development of prevention mechanisms and best practices
Operating Costs $23.0Total Request $248.6
A New State of ReadinessA New State of ReadinessTo be fast, flexible, localized and comprehensive – the USG must be READY.
In FY09 the Civilian Stabilization Initiative request includes:
FY09 Request (in mil)
•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.
•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.
Meeting the Challenge of R&S: TrainingMeeting the Challenge of R&S: Training
Common Past Reconstruction & Stabilization ChallengesCommon Past Reconstruction & Stabilization Challenges
Integrated Integrated
USG USG
Training Training
StrategyStrategy
Integrated Integrated
USG USG
Training Training
StrategyStrategy
• Developing a USG Integrated Training Strategy for all personnel involved in the IMS
• Seven new R&S courses at the Foreign Service Institute
• Establishing an exercise plan to increase civilian exercises and participation in military exercises.
•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.
•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.
Meeting the Challenge of R&SMeeting the Challenge of R&S
Common Past Reconstruction & Stabilization ChallengesCommon Past 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
• Proposed Conflict Response Fund (Congress rejected)
• Section 1207 renewed in FY08 NDAA
International OrganizationsInternational Organizations
Political/Economic ForaPolitical/Economic Fora
Regional OrganizationsRegional Organizations
Bilateral Partner CountriesBilateral Partner Countries
Building Global Capacity with International PartnersBuilding Global Capacity with International Partners
G8 (Peacebuilding Structures, Capacity, Conflict Prevention)
Collaboration with countries having nationally coordinated crisis response mechanisms
NATO (Comprehensive Approach)EU (Work Plan)
““We need greater capacity to bring all necessary civilian resources to bear in We need greater capacity to bring all necessary civilian resources to bear in crisis and post crisis situations.” crisis and post crisis situations.”
EU High Representative for Foreign Policy Javier Solana EU High Representative for Foreign Policy Javier Solana December 14, 2005December 14, 2005
United Nations (Peacebuilding Commission, DPKO, DPA)
25
QUESTIONS?????For additional information, go to:
Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS)
WWW.CRS.STATE.GOV