JOINT STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Lessons drawn from past interventions and stakeholders’ views Accompanying the document Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council Elements for an EU-wide strategic framework to support security sector reform
Date: 2016-07-05
Institutions: European Commission, European External Action Service
Subjects: European neighbourhood policy, common security and defence policy, conflict prevention, international cooperation, international security, peacekeeping, public safety, threat to national security

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

HIGH REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE UNION FOR
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND
SECURITY POLICY

Strasbourg, 5.7.2016  
SWD(2016) 221 final 

JOINT STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Lessons drawn from past interventions and stakeholders’ views 

Accompanying the document 

Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council 

Elements for an EU-wide strategic framework to support security sector reform 

{JOIN(2016) 31 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Section 1 - Executive Summary 

This Joint Staff Working Document accompanies the Joint Communication to the European 
Parliament  and  the  Council  on  Elements  for  an  EU-wide  Strategic  Framework  to  support 
Security  Sector  Reform  (SSR).1  It  aims  to  provide  a  critical  assessment  of  the  EU’s 
engagement  on  SSR  by  summarising  and  analysing  the  findings  of  the  various  evaluations, 
lessons identified reports, studies, and consultations with stakeholders conducted over the past 
15 years, from 2001 to 2016. Given the limitations of such an approach, this document is not 
intended  to  be  a  fully-fledged  evaluation  exercise,  but  rather  provide  an  overview  of  the 
outcomes from past monitoring and evaluation endeavours. This overview was considered to 
provide a sufficient basis on which to assess the current policy and inform decision-making, 
based  on  evaluation  practice  over  the  period  in  question.  An  overall  evaluation  of  the 
performance of the Strategic Framework, using the results of the annual evaluations will be 
carried  out  within  five  years.  This  will  be  done  in  accordance  with  the  recently  adopted 
Commission Better Regulation guidelines2, providing a basis for consideration of any possible 
further development of the Framework.  

Many of the evaluations3 found that while the SSR issue itself continued to be relevant, the 
policy  framework  based  on  concepts  produced  in  2005  and  20064  could  now  be  considered 
insufficient  due  to  the  events  and  changes  that  have  occurred  since  their  creation  and  their 
relevance was mixed at times.  

The findings also point out that the effectiveness and efficiency of EU support for SSR was 
hampered by several weaknesses such as the lack of institutional capacity, the lack of a long-
term political and strategic approach grounded in the wider state-building context, insufficient 
basing  in  analysis  of  local  contexts  and  risks,  lack  of  ownership  as  well  as  weaknesses  in 
monitoring and evaluation.  

The  coherence  of  EU  engagement  on  SSR  was  found  to  be  hampered  by  the  fragmented 
policy  framework  whilst  there  was  also  an  unclear  division  of  labour  inter-institutionally  as 
well as on the ground.  

Nevertheless, the EU was found to have a strong added-value on SSR due to its reputation and 
positive perception by many partner countries, the vast array of expertise and instruments it 
could mobilise, and its long experience in countries around the world.  

1 Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council, “Elements for an EU-wide Strategic 
Framework to support Security Sector Reform, JOIN(2016) 31  
2 Commission Staff Working Document: Better Regulations Guidelines, SWD(2015) 111, 
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/docs/swd_br_guidelines_en.pdf 
3 A detailed list of evaluations and documents consulted for the purpose of this Joint Staff Working Document is 
provided in an Annex I. 
4 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament – “A Concept for European 
Community Support for Security Sector Reform” COM(2006) 253 Final, 2006, pp.5-6: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1453735511168&uri=CELEX:52006DC0253; “EU concept for 
ESDP support to SSR” (Council, 2005, 12566/4/05),  
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2012566%202005%20REV%204 

2 

 
                                                            
Section 2 – Introduction 

SSR grew in prominence in the international community and within the EU in the 1990s and 
has been recognised as an important tool in conflict prevention, peace and state-building, and 
sustainable development.  

SSR, as understood by the EU5, involves transforming the security system, which includes all 
the  different  security  and  oversight  actors,  their  roles,  responsibilities  and  actions,  working 
together  to  manage  and  operate  the  system  in  a  manner  that  is  consistent  with  democratic 
norms and sound principles of good governance, and thus contributing to a well-functioning 
security framework.  

The  evaluated  activities  include  European  Commission  programmes,  Common  Security  and 
Defence Policy (CSDP) missions and operations, as well as EU Member States’ interventions 
in order to have a comprehensive picture of the EU’s engagement on SSR. For this Joint Staff 
Working  Document,  “support  to  SSR”  encompasses  all  types  of  EU  engagement  in  the 
security  sector  in  third  countries  ranging  from  short-term  actions  to  longer-term  systemic 
actions.  

The aim of this Joint Staff Working Document is to present a critical assessment of the EU 
interventions  on  SSR,  draw  the  main  lessons  learnt  and  assess  how  EU  support  might  be 
improved in the future based on the past experiences of the EU and its Member States. This 
Joint  Staff  Working  Document  is  not,  however,  itself  an  evaluation  of  EU  support  for  SSR 
and does not contain data or quantitative information on  the  performance  of the policy as a 
whole. 

Section 3 – Background to the initiative 

The EU’s external action is guided by the objectives laid down, inter alia, in Article 21(2) of 
the Treaty on European Union (TEU) which, amongst other objectives, include to “preserve 
peace,  prevent  conflicts  and  strengthen  international  security”  and  to  “foster  the  sustainable 
economic,  social  and  environmental  development  of  developing  countries,  with  the  primary 
aim of eradicating poverty”. Whilst the Treaty of Lisbon only came into force in 2009, these 
objectives  have  been  at  the  heart  of  EU  external  action  under  both  Community  competence 
and the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), as reflected in key policy documents.6 
Furthermore,  the  EU  has  long  recognised  the  security-development  nexus  and  the  need  for 

5 For example, among others, Council conclusions on a “Policy Framework for Security Sector Reform”, 
Council of the European Union, document 9967/06, 2006:  
6 For example, among others, “A Secure Europe in a Better World – European Security Strategy”, European 
Council, Document ST 15895 2003 INIT, December 2003: http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-
15895-2003-INIT/en/pdf  ; and the “Joint statement by the Council and the representatives of the governments of 
the Member States meeting within the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission on European 
Union Development Policy: ‘The European Consensus’”, Official Journal C 46, 24/2/2006 : http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:42006X0224%2801%29&qid=1453825965414&from=EN 

3 

 
 
                                                            
supporting  Security  Sector  Reform  in  partner  countries  in  order  to  build  state  structures, 
which can fulfil basic functions and meet the needs of citizens.  

The EU has long been engaged in supporting Security Sector Reform in partner countries and 
regions around the world under  a  wide range of policy areas. In 2005 and 2006, the former 
Community  produced  two  concepts  to  shape  support  under  the  European  Security  and 
Defence  Policy  (ESDP,  now  CSDP)7,  and  support  under  Community  competence 
respectively8.  The  “EU  Concept  for  ESDP  Support  for Security  Sector  Reform”  focused  on 
the  principles,  key  elements  and  modalities  for  ESDP  support  on  SSR.  It  also  stressed  the 
need for close cooperation among all relevant actors to ensure a consistency, coherence and 
complementarity  of  EU  external  action.  This  approach  was  mirrored  by  the  “Concept  for 
European  Community  Support  for  Security  Sector  Reform”  which  also  identified  areas  of 
engagement,  the  guiding  principles,  and  the  need  for  coordinated  and  holistic  approach  to 
SSR.  

The  Council  conclusions  of  6  June  2006  established  that  these  two concepts constituted the 
EU policy framework on SSR.9 EU action on SSR should be based on principles drawing on 
the  Organization  for  Economic  Cooperation  and  Development’s  Development  Assistance 
Committee (OECD-DAC) definition of SSR10. The EU policy framework also made clear that 
the EU can mobilise a broad range of civilian and military instruments able to support SSR 
activities  and  that  a  case-by-case  analysis  is  needed  to  assess  whether  proposed  activities 
should be done under EU cooperation instruments, CSDP, or a combination of both.  

These two documents have been since then guiding the EU activities in the field of SSR. The 
majority  of  mandates  of  the  35  CSDP  missions  and  operations  conducted  so  far  (or  still 
ongoing)  have  included  building  the  capacities  of  peace  and  security  actors  in  partner 
countries.  Thus,  many  of  the  EU  civilian  and  military  crisis  management  missions  and 
operations deployed worldwide also have a specific SSR component. Taking into account the 
Union’s  development  cooperation,  over  the  period  of  2001-2009,  the  European  Union 
disbursed  approximately  EUR  1  billion  targeting  justice  and  security  sector  reform 
worldwide.  In  2014  alone,  the  EU  has  committed  EUR  2.26  billion  for  the  sector  of 
governance  and  civil  society  and  a  significant  part  of  these  allocations  was  channelled  to 
improve the security and justice sectors in many beneficiary countries11.  

7 “EU Concept for ESDP Support for Security Sector Reform (SSR)”, Council of the European Union, 
Document 12566/4/05, 2005: 
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2012566%202005%20REV%204  
8 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament – “A Concept for European 
Community Support for Security Sector Reform” COM(2006) 253 Final, 2006: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1453735511168&uri=CELEX:52006DC0253   
9 “Council Conclusions on a Policy Framework for Security Sector Reform”, Council of the European Union, 
Document 9967/06, 2006: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%209967%202006%20INIT  
10 “Council Conclusions on a Policy Framework for Security Sector Reform”, Council of the European Union, 
Document 9967/06, 2006: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%209967%202006%20INIT  
11 2015 Annual Report on the European Union’s development and external assistance policies and their 
implementation in 2014. The Report, https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/2015-annual-report-
web_en.pdf. 

4 

 
                                                            
However, since the policy framework mentioned above was developed, a number of changes 
have  occurred.  In  particular,  the  Treaty  of  Lisbon,  which  entered  into  force  on  1  December 
2009,  created  the  function  of  High  Representative  of  the  Union  for  Foreign  Affairs  and 
Security Policy (HR) who is also a Vice-President of the Commission (VP), to ensure greater 
coordination and consistency in EU foreign policy. To support the HRVP, the Lisbon Treaty 
led to the establishment of the European External Action Service.  

The  Commission  and  the  HR  issued  a  Joint  Communication  in  December  2013  on  the 
“Comprehensive Approach to External Conflicts and Crises”12 which emphasised the strategic 
and coherent use of the EU’s tools and instruments spanning the diplomatic, security, defence, 
financial, trade, development cooperation and humanitarian aid13 fields. This was followed in 
April  2015  by  the  Joint  Communication  on  “Capacity  Building  in  Support  of  Security  and 
Development”14  (CBSD)  which  analysed  how  to  better  operationalise  the  Comprehensive 
Approach  in  the  field  of  capacity  building  in  the  security  sector  and  proposed  options  and 
steps  to  better  combine  existing  EU  policies  and  funding  instruments.  One  of  the  options 
proposed  was  the  establishment  of  an  EU-wide  Strategic  Framework  for  Security  Sector 
Reform.  This  was  later  endorsed  in  May  2015  by  the  Council15  and  included  in  the 
Commission Work Programme 201616.  

Internationally, the nexus between security and development continues to rise in prominence. 
The  2030  Agenda  for  Sustainable  Development  adopted  in  September  2015  by  the  United 
Nations General Assembly17 recognised that there can be no sustainable development without 
peace and vice versa. In particular, Goal 16 of this Agenda aims at promoting peaceful and 
inclusive  societies  for  sustainable  development,  providing  access  to  justice  for  all  and 
building  effective,  accountable  institutions  at  all  levels.  Furthermore,  the  OECD-DAC 
recognised  in  December  2014  that  “peaceful  and  inclusive  societies  will  be  an  increasingly 
important  part  of  the  development  agenda”  and  agreed  to  “generate  greater  political 
momentum  in  support  of  peacebuilding  and  state-building  efforts.”18  The  OECD  DAC 
subsequently  decided  on  19  February  2016  to  “update  and  modernise  the  ODA  reporting 

12 “Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council on the EU’s Comprehensive Approach to 
External Conflicts and Crises”, JOIN(2013) 30 Final, 2013: 
http://www.eeas.europa.eu/statements/docs/2013/131211_03_en.pdf  
13   In line with the Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council on the Comprehensive 
Approach to External Conflicts and Crises, humanitarian aid shall be provided with respect of the principles of 
neutrality, impartiality and independence, solely on the basis of the needs of affected populations. 
14 “Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council on Capacity Building in Support of 
Security and Development – Enabling Partners to Prevent and Manage Crises”, JOIN(2015) 17 Final, 2015 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52015JC0017  
15 “Council Conclusions on CSDP”, Council of the European Union, Document No. 8971/15, May 2015 
file:///C:/Users/USER/Downloads/st08971.en15%20(1).pdf  
16 “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Commission Work Programme 2016 – No Time for 
Business as Usual”, COM(2015) 610 Final, 2015 http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/pdf/cwp_2016_en.pdf  
17 “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, United Nations General Assembly, 
25 September 2015 http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E  
18 “DAC High Level Meeting Final Communiqué” OECD DAC, 16 December 2014 
http://www.oecd.org/dac/OECD%20DAC%20HLM%20Communique.pdf   

5 

 
                                                            
directives  on  peace  and  security  expenditures”.19  These  developments  have  highlighted  the 
importance  of  the  security-development  nexus  and  have  deep  implications  for  EU  external 
action in SSR.  

These  developments  at  EU  and  international  level  also  coincide  with  a  time  of  great 
challenges for the EU and its partners. As recognised in the Strategic Review20, instability as 
well as emerging and actual crises in the EU’s direct neighbourhood and around the globe are 
on  the  rise  in  an  increasingly  connected,  contested  and  complex  world  which  threatens  the 
security and development of the EU and its partner countries.  

Section 4 – Method 

This  Joint  Staff  Working  Document  draws  upon  the  input  received  through  different 
evaluations and reports on EU support to SSR as well as expert consultations. It analyses and 
summarises the following sources of information:  

•  Evaluations based on external studies commissioned by the European Commission on 
EU’s  support  to  security  and  justice  reform  through  various  EU  external  action 
financing  instruments,  including  the  European  Development  Fund  (EDF)21,  and 
conducted  on  the  basis  of  clear  guidelines.  This  includes  most  notably  the  2011 
Thematic Evaluation of European Commission Support to Justice and Security System 
Reform22 but also country evaluations on the EU’s cooperation with different countries 
(Burundi23,  the  Democratic  Republic  of  the  Congo24,  Georgia25,  Honduras26)  which 
cover support to justice, governance or SSR. Project evaluations were also consulted, 
such  as  those  on  police  reform27.  However,  when  considering  the  Commission’s 
Thematic  Evaluation  of  Support  to  Justice  and  Security  System  Reform,  it  must  be 

19 “DAC High Level Meeting Final Communiqué”, OECD DAC, 19 February 2016, 
http://www.oecd.org/dac/DAC-HLM-Communique-2016.pdf  
20 “Strategic Review: The European Union in a changing global environment - A more connected, contested and 
complex world”, June 2015, https://europa.eu/globalstrategy/en/strategic-review-european-union-changing-
global-environment  
21 Council Decision no. 1/2006 of the ACP-EC Council of Ministers of 2 June 2006 specifying the multiannual 
financial framework for the period 2008 to 2013 and modifying the revised ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, 
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/mff-2008-2013-revised-acp-eu-agreement-2006_en.pdf. 
22 “Thematic Evaluation of European Commission Support to Justice and Security System Reform”, European 
Commission, November 2011 
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation_reports/reports/2011/1295_vol1_en.pdf  
23 “Joint Evaluation of the Cooperation with Burundi of Belgium the European Commission, France, Germany, 
Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom”, February 2014: https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/node/81065_es  
24 “Evaluation of the European Union’s Cooperation with the Democratic Republic of Congo 2008-2013”, 
European Commission, August 2014, http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/strategic-evaluation-eu-cooperation-
democratic-republic-congo-2008-2013_en  
25 “Strategic Evaluation of the EU cooperation with Georgia 2007-2013”, May 2015 
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/strategic-evaluation-eu-cooperation-georgia-2007-2013_en  
26 “Strategic Evaluation of the EU cooperation with Honduras, 2002-2009”, April 2012 
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/strategic-evaluation-eu-cooperation-honduras-2002-2009_en  
27 Among others, “Final External Evaluation of the EU funded project – Support to Reform of the Myanmar 
Police Force in the Areas of Crowd Management and Community Policing”, December 2015 

6 

 
 
                                                            
emphasised  that  it  covered  the  period  of  2001-2009  and  thus,  while  it  offers  useful 
lessons  when  read  alongside  the  other  evaluations  and  sources,  there  are  major 
limitations  to  this  source  given  its  temporal  scope.  For  the  country  and  project 
evaluations, the inherent limitation of their nature is that they provide snapshots which 
may  not  be  reflective  of  EU  support  to  SSR  more  broadly.  Nonetheless,  they  offer 
useful and concrete experiences of challenges faced and lessons which could be used 
to further strengthen EU support.  
Internal  Lessons  Learnt  Reports  on  EU  CSDP  missions  and  operations  produced  by 
relevant  European  External  Action  Service  divisions  responsible  for  management  of 
these  missions  that  are  publicly  available28.  Given  the  sensitive  nature  of  some  of 
these  reports  however,  parts  of  these  reports  remain  classified  and  thus  only  those 
which  have  been  declassified  can  be  drawn  upon  in  this  Joint  Staff  Working 
Document.  

• 

•  Selected evaluations commissioned by EU Member States on their support to SSR.29 
These  evaluations  ranged  from  country-level  evaluations  to  thematic  evaluations. 
Whilst  these  do  not  strictly  cover  EU  interventions  on  SSR  as  such  and  mainly 
concern  bilateral  initiatives,  they  offer  pertinent  lessons  on  engagement  in  SSR  and 
shed light on some of the challenges faced. They were chosen due to their relevance in 
providing lessons learnt on SSR to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of a future 
EU framework on SSR. 30  

•  Relevant  Council  conclusions31,  reports  from  the  Court  of  Auditors32  and  European 
Parliament studies, notably a report commissioned by the European Parliament’s Sub-
Committee for Security and Defence in 2013 on the EU’s approach towards SSR33.  
•  Case-studies34 facilitated by the EU and conducted by SSR experts to draw concrete 
lessons  from  three  countries  where  the  EU  has  supported  SSR  processes  in  order  to 
draw upon the experiences and good practices identified. Whilst these have limitations 
similar to the country and project evaluations mentioned above, they nonetheless offer 
practical lessons and experiences. 

28 EEAS(2015) 256,  Annual 2014 CSDP Lessons Report, 6777/15,  
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6777-2015-INIT/en/pdf 
29 Among others, “Review of UK Development Assistance for Security and Justice”, Independent Commission 
for Aid Impact, March 2015: http://icai.independent.gov.uk/report/uk-development-assistance-for-security-and-
justice/  
30 Among others, “Annual 2014 CSDP Lessons Report”, 3 March 2015, Document 6777/15, 
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6777-2015-INIT/en/pdf  
31 Such as “Council conclusions on the EU’s comprehensive approach”, May 2014, Document 9644/14: 
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9644-2014-INIT/en/pdf  
32 “EU Support for Governance in the Democratic Republic of the Congo”, Special Report No. 9, 2013:  
http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR13_09/SR13_09_EN.pdf  
33 “Assessing the EU’s Approach to Security Sector Reform (SSR)”, January 2013: 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/433837/EXPO-
SEDE_ET%282013%29433837_EN.pdf  
34 Based on the draft of the “Country case studies to inform the EU-wide Strategic Framework for supporting 
SSR - Findings from Mali, DRC and Ukraine”. The document will be made publicly available after the 
publication of this Joint Staff Working Document.  

7 

 
                                                            
•  Consultations with EU Member State experts and civil society organisations engaged 

in SSR-related activities which took place in Brussels.  

However,  to  comprehensively  assess  and  evaluate  EU  engagement  on  SSR  both  under  the 
CFSP  and  non-CFSP  domains  would  have  required  a  large  data-collection  and  analysis 
exercise.  This  constraint  has  therefore  meant  that  the  evaluations,  studies  and  stakeholder 
opinions  through  consultations  have  been  the  main  source  for  this  Joint  Staff  Working 
Document.  Furthermore,  the  differences  between  the  European  Commission’s  methodology 
of  evaluation  towards  its  development  programmes  and  the  one  applied  by  CSDP  missions 
should be noted. While the former has a long tradition of pursuing evidence-based monitoring 
and  evaluation  exercises  often  supported  by  external  studies,  the  latter  relies  on  internal 
reporting, does not involve external stakeholders and has a low level of triangulation of data. 
This  fact  has  been  effectively  taken  into  account  in  the  process  of  preparation  of  this 
document. 

Section 5 – Implementation state of play (Results) 

In particular since the adoption of the two SSR concepts, the EU has invested significantly in 
supporting SSR in partner countries under its wide range of instruments and policies such as 
Enlargement,  the  European  Neighbourhood  Policy,  Development  Cooperation,  and  CSDP 
operations and missions.  

Under European Neighbourhood Policy and Development Cooperation instruments, financed 
from the EU Budget and the European Development Fund (EDF), the Commission contracted 
over EUR 1 billion in interventions from 2001-2009 related to support for security and justice 
sector  reform  in  partner  countries,  with  six  main  core  areas:  law  enforcement;  border 
management; justice reform; Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR); civilian 
management;  and  civilian  oversight.  Over  105  countries  benefitted  from  security-related 
interventions,  with  85%  of  the  funding  concentrated  in  23  countries.  The  experience  and 
results from these interventions were the subject of a Thematic Evaluation carried out by the 
Commission in 2011 which drew a number of conclusions and recommendations35.  

Since  then,  the  EU  has  been  increasing  its  engagement  on  SSR  under  its  cooperation 
instruments.  In  the  current  2014-2020  Multiannual  Financial  Framework,  the  EU  has 
programmed actions in the Governance sector in at least 69 countries around the world whilst 
there are rule of law programmes foreseen or ongoing in 38 countries and programmes with a 

35 “Thematic Evaluation of European Commission Support to Justice and Security System Reform”, European 
Commission, November 2011: 
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation_reports/reports/2011/1295_vol1_en.pdf 

8 

 
 
 
                                                            
clear  security  component  in  as  many  as  16  countries36.  These  programmes  have  taken  into 
account the recommendations of the Thematic Evaluation of 2011.  

Meanwhile, under CSDP, a total of 35 missions and operations have been launched since its 
inception37  and  the  mandates  of  an  increasing  number  of  these  civilian  and  military  crisis 
management  missions  have  been  related  to,  if  not  directly  targeted  at,  support  for  SSR  in 
partner  countries  and  include  a  specific  SSR  component.  These  include  missions  aimed  at 
police reform38,  mentoring  and  advising39,  promoting  the  rule-of-law40and  capacity  building 
for security sector actors41.  

Since 2014, the EU’s advisory mission for civilian security sector reform in Ukraine (EUAM 
Ukraine)  provides  strategic  support,  advice  and  mentoring.  The  EU’s  military  advisory 
mission in the Central African Republic (EUMAM RCA) supports the country’s authorities in 
preparing the coming security sector reform. Through such CSDP operational capacities, the 
EU  has  been  training,  monitoring  and  advising  police,  justice  and  military  personnel  in 
countries such as Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Democratic Republic of the Congo, 
Mali  or  Somalia.  Through  3  military  training  missions  in  Mali,  Somalia  and  the  Central 
African Republic, (EUTM Mali, EUTM Somalia, EUTM RCA), the EU also supports these 
countries  authorities  and  armed  forces  in  building  an  accountable  and  professional  security 
sector,  including  through  training  in  international  humanitarian  law.  Most  recently  a  new 
emphasis  has  been  put  on  ensuring  the  sustainability  of  CSDP  actions  through  a  more 
systemic approach to CSDP transition strategies that would enable pursuing a medium-term 
or a long-term approach to SSR and secure gains achieved by these missions on the ground42. 

Section 6 – Findings from Evaluations: Assessing EU Support for SSR 

This section analyses the findings and lessons learnt gained from the evaluations, studies and 
consultations outlined in Section 4. It aims to assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, 
coherence and added-value of EU engagement on SSR. 

36 Based on the analysis of the existing National Indicative Programmes (NIPs) and Regional Indicative 
Programmes (RIPs) for the period of 2014-2020, as of May 2016. 
37 http://www.eeas.europa.eu/csdp/missions-and-operations/  
38 For instance, EU Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL Afghanistan) aimed at, inter alia, institutional 
reform of the Ministry of the Interior and assist the Government of Afghanistan in further professionalising the 
Afghan National Police. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014D0922  
39 For instance, EU CSDP Military Advisory Mission in the Central African Republic (EUMAM RCA) aimed at, 
inter alia, supporting the CAR authorities in the preparation of the upcoming Security Sector Reform. http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015D0078&from=EN  
40 For instance, EU Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX Kosovo) aimed at, inter alia, monitoring, 
mentoring and advising Kosovo institutions on all areas related to the wider rule of law. http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2008.042.01.0092.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2008:042:TOC  
41 For instance, EU CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) aimed at, inter alia, assisting and advising the 
Malian Internal Security Forces in the implementation of the security reform set out by the new Government. 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014D0219  
42 As in cases of EUCAP Sahel Mali and EULEX Kosovo. See: Political and Security Committee Decision 
(CFSP) 2015/610 of 15 April 2015 extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union CSDP 
mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) (EUCAP Sahel Mali/2/2015) 

9 

 
 
                                                            
6.1 Relevance of SSR and the EU’s policy framework on SSR   

Many  EU  policy  documents,  Council  conclusions,  Commission  evaluations  and  other 
documents  conclude  that  SSR  is  essential  to  the  EU’s  external  action  with  regard  to 
preserving  international  peace,  security  and  stability  as  well  as  promoting  sustainable 
development. The Commission’s 2011 Thematic Evaluation noted that interventions on SSR 
were  consistent  with  the  wider  goals  of  the  EU’s  external  cooperation.  Moreover,  SSR  was 
identified  by  the  CSDP  Lessons  Learnt  Reports  as  being  an  effective  tool  in  promoting 
common  interests  and  values  such  as  human  rights,  good  governance,  and  strengthening 
international peace and security.  

The issue of SSR has gained even greater prominence in recent times. During the consultation 
process for the Review of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP)43 and as highlighted in 
the  Joint  Communication  itself44,  stakeholders  were  of  the  view  that  the  EU  should  engage 
further  in  SSR  and  that  the  security  dimension  should  be  given  greater  prominence  in  the 
ENP.  One  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  new  ENP  is  the  stabilisation  of  the 
Neighbourhood  and  a  greater  focus  on  SSR  flows  directly  from  this  principle.  The  Council 
conclusions on CBSD45 and the ENP Review46 concurred on the importance of SSR.  

Regarding  the  relevance  of  the  current  EU  policy  framework  from  2006  on  SSR,  the 
Commission’s 2011 Thematic Evaluation and the case-studies conducted for this Joint Staff 
Working Document noted that this framework provided guidance on how to engage on SSR. 
The issues of security and governance were found to have been addressed in many country-
level programming documents in the Commission’s 2011 Thematic Evaluation. Whilst some 
were only descriptive without providing guidance on the cooperation strategy, in some cases 
such as Georgia the  policy  framework had a strong  influence  on the  EU’s cooperation with 
partner countries.  

However,  in  some  cases  such  as  the  Democratic  Republic  of  the  Congo  (DRC),  Mali  and 
Ukraine, the case-studies found that recent EU country and regional level documents did not 
always make reference to these policy documents, and staff displayed unfamiliarity with the 
scope and objectives of the 2005 and 2006 concepts. Furthermore, the CSDP Lessons Learnt 
Reports  recommend  that  this  fractured  approach  needs  to  be  addressed  in  light  of  the  post-
Lisbon  era  taking  into  account  the  EU’s  Comprehensive  Approach  to  external  conflicts  and 
crises.  

43 “Joint Staff Working Document – Towards a new European Neighbourhood Policy”, SWD(2015) 500 final, 
http://eeas.europa.eu/enp/documents/2015/151118_staff-working-document_en.pdf  
44 “ Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Review of the European Neighbourhood Policy”, JOIN(2015) 
50 final, http://eeas.europa.eu/enp/documents/2015/151118_joint-communication_review-of-the-enp_en.pdf  
45 “Council conclusions on CSDP”, 18 May 2015, Meeting Document 8971/15, 
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8971-2015-INIT/en/pdf  
46 “Council conclusions on the Review of the European Neighbourhood Policy”, 14 December 2015, Meeting 
Document 15169/15, http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15169-2015-INIT/en/pdf 

10 

 
                                                            
6.2 Effectiveness of EU support for SSR  

When  considering  the  effectiveness  of  the  EU’s  support  for  SSR,  one  criticism  which  has 
emerged  from  the  Commission’s  2011  Thematic  Evaluation  and  the  CSDP  Lessons  Learnt 
Reports  has  been  the  insufficient  institutional  capacity  within  the  EU  institutions.  The 
Commission  was  found  to  not  have  adequately  developed  in-house  expertise  on  SSR  to 
manage programmes or conduct policy dialogues effectively. In the field of SSR, especially in 
fragile states, it was difficult to attract and retain skilled staff, whilst the Commission has had 
limited access to the pool of SSR experts from EU Member States for CSDP missions.  

Regarding  CSDP,  dedicated  trainings  on  SSR  were  found  to  be  useful  and  staffing  pools 
needed  to  be  revised  due  to  the  need  for  different  core  competencies.  Regarding  guidance 
tools,  the  Commission’s  2011  Thematic  Evaluation  found  that  there  were  limited  tools  and 
guidance material available although since then, several of these have been developed.47 

instruments  or  programming  documents,  EU  external  action 

Another issue which has emerged in the Commission’s 2011 Thematic Evaluation, the CSDP 
Lessons Learnt Reports and consultations relates to the anchoring of SSR-related actions in 
the wider governance and state-building framework. Whilst there was a recognised need 
to  work  holistically,  due  to  government  requests  or  the  sometimes  limited  scope  of  the  EU 
funding 
instruments’ 
programmes  and  CSDP  missions  focused  too  much  on  specific  parts  of  the  security  and 
justice system and did not link these in a broader strategic manner. There was often a lack of a 
strategic, long-term political approach to anchor SSR-related support to national security and 
justice strategies of partner countries. This meant that the EU did not always set out clearly 
what  interventions  were  supposed  to  achieve,  how  they  related  to  other  SSR-related 
interventions,  and  how  they  were  linked  to  the  broader  governance,  rule-of-law  and  state-
building  framework  or  how  they  responded  to  the  wider  democratisation  and  poverty 
eradication goals of the EU’s external action.  

The  case-studies  analysing  the  EU’s  efforts  in  the  DRC,  Mali  and  Ukraine  provide  further 
evidence  of  this  lack  of  anchoring,  and  highlight  that  Commission  programmes  and  CSDP 
missions have tended to focus on operational and technical levels of reform. Governance was 
treated as an additional element rather than a cross-cutting one.  

The findings from the Commission evaluations and the CSDP Lessons Learnt Reports, echoed 
in  consultations  conducted  for  this  exercise,  also  suggest  that  the  EU  has  not  always  paid 
enough attention to the needs of the local population and service-delivery, although the 
approach in this regard has very much improved over the years. Much of the focus has 
been going into institution building or capacity building programmes which may not have a 
tangible impact on human security. Furthermore, less emphasis was placed on strengthening 
the role of oversight actors such as parliaments and civil society groups, nor has there been 

47 Such as the Joint EEAS and COM Guidance Note on “Addressing conflict prevention, peace-building and 
security issues under external cooperation instruments”, EEAS and European Commission, 2013, published as 
press release; http://capacity4dev.ec.europa.eu/public-fragility/minisite/support-and-guidance/addressing-
conflict-prevention-peacebuilding-and-security-issues-under  

11 

 
                                                            
sufficient  attention  on  engaging  those  who  are  supposed  to  be  the  ultimate  beneficiaries  of 
SSR support.  

Whilst  in  some  cases  the  institution  building  approach  can  have  an  impact,  experience  has 
shown that this was not always the case.48 As a result, the Thematic Evaluation called for a 
“problem-solving”  approach  and  for  the  EU  to  be  more  flexible  in  balancing  between 
strengthening  state  institutional  capacities  and  meeting  the  security  and  justice  needs  of  the 
local population. The recommendations also called for enhancing the capacity of civil society 
to monitor the performance and engage in the reform processes.  

There has also been criticism that interventions were often not tailored to the context and 
that input was lacking from those with local knowledge of the security and justice situation in 
the country. EU interventions were in some cases found to be overly ambitious as they were 
sometimes based on incomplete analysis of the risks or the local context which might have 
led  to  their  scaling  down.49  Insufficient  integration  of  structural  causes  of  conflicts  into 
bilateral  strategies  was  also  a  weakness  found  in  the  Joint  Evaluation  of  support  with 
Burundi. One lesson which has thus emerged is the need to anchor the design and delivery 
of EU interventions on SSR on analysis of the local situation. This should be based on firm 
evidence,  risk  analysis  and  consultations  with  a  wide  range  of  local  state  and  non-state 
stakeholders. 

The  evaluations  and  studies  have  also  noted  that  the  EU  has  to  improve  its  approach  in 
securing national ownership from partner countries. For the most part, the EU has taken a 
technical  approach  towards  SSR,  a  subject  which  is  deeply  political.  Experience  has  shown 
that  it  can  thus  be  difficult  in  securing  genuine  ownership  or  commitment  from  partners  to 
undergo reform. Furthermore, it was identified that there is a need to operate on the political 
level and secure political commitment from the partner country from the beginning.  

The  case-studies  of  the  DRC,  Mali  and  Ukraine  corroborated  that  EU  external  action 
financing  instruments  tend  to  lack  flexibility  to  respond  to  the  long-term  yet  fluid  SSR 
process,  although  the  Instrument  contributing  to  Stability  and  Peace  was  found  to  be  an 
exception.  The  case-studies  also  found  that  CSDP  missions  and  their  frequent  renewals  of 
mission mandates offered more flexibility.  

Consequently, the EU’s approach to SSR in terms of interventions and procedures has been 
deemed  at  times  insufficiently  flexible  and  long-term  enough  to  adequately  support  and 
respond to security needs.  

6.3 Efficiency of EU support for SSR 

The project-based approach was not always the most appropriate modality. According to 
the  2011  Thematic  Evaluation,  the  EU  external  action  instruments  programming  and 

48 Also found in the UK’s Thematic Evaluation on Security and Justice Programming.  
49 As found by the Court of Auditors for example in the Democratic Republic of the Congo where several justice 
programmes had to be scaled back.  

12 

 
                                                            
implementation  procedures  for  projects,  as  agreed  by  the  co-legislators,  sometimes  place 
limitations  on  their  flexibility  and  efficiency  due  to  the  difficulty  in  altering  objectives  or 
approaches. The short-term nature of projects, and the rigid rules and conditionalities of such 
assistance also posed difficulties. Furthermore, project-based interventions tended sometimes 
to be unsustainable. When the required conditions are met by the beneficiary country, the use 
of Sector Budget Support as a modality has been identified as having potential in overcoming 
certain short-comings of the project-based approach50. However, Sector Budget Support can 
only be used when local conditions are appropriate.  

It was found in the Lessons Learnt Reports, as well as the CBSD pilot cases, that the CSDP 
missions  often  encountered  obstacles  in  finding  sources  of  funding  for  SSR-related 
actions. These include actions complementing CSDP missions such as for military advisory 
activities or social/community assistance to military actors in support of reform processes. 
Weaknesses were found in monitoring and evaluating EU interventions. For example, the 
Evaluation  of  the  Myanmar  Community  Policing  project  as  well  as  the  Commission’s  2011 
Thematic Evaluation found that  whilst the  EU  in its  programmes did utilise monitoring and 
evaluation  techniques,  programmes  were  weak  in  developing  baselines  and  clearly  defined 
indicators  and  less  emphasis  was  put  on  developing  monitoring  capacity  within  these 
programmes.  This  remark  is  not  applicable  to  CSDP  missions  since  there  are  insufficient 
monitoring and evaluation mechanisms of these endeavours. 

The case-studies on the DRC, Mali and Ukraine reinforce this point whereby it was found that 
the data used was poor when conducting monitoring and evaluation, indicators were not often 
disaggregated by gender, and risks and assumptions are rarely reviewed.  

Regarding  CSDP  missions,  it  was  noted  that  there  were  difficulties  in  monitoring  the 
processes  of  SSR  and  that  benchmarks  used  by  CSDP  missions  do  not  address  the 
reform  process  overall.  There  is  therefore  a  need  for  the  EU  to  systematically  incorporate 
monitoring  and  evaluation  mechanisms  through,  for  example,  developing  and  strengthening 
guidelines  on  the  use  of  baselines,  clearly  defined  indicators  and  benchmarks,  and  other 
monitoring and evaluation tools.  

6.4 Coherence  

In terms of coherence between EU interventions on SSR, it was noted in several studies that 
the  complex  institutional  set-up  posed  difficulties  for  EU  interventions  in  SSR  due  to  the 
lack of a clear division of labour coordination and sometimes also competition between 
EU development programmes and CSDP missions. Whilst the post-Lisbon set-up and the 
Comprehensive  Approach  have  gone  some  way  in  addressing  these,  the  lack  of  an 
overarching  single  policy  framework  on  SSR  has  contributed  to  a  fragmented  approach 
lacking adequate coordination, sequencing and complementarity of actions. 

50 Budget Support Guidelines, Sep. 2012, https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/methodology-budget-
support-guidelines-201209_en_2.pdf 

13 

 
                                                            
The  findings  from  the  Commission’s  2011  Thematic  Evaluation  have  noted  that  EU 
engagement  on  SSR  was  often  unaccompanied  by  a  strategic,  long-term  political  approach 
supporting these efforts in partner countries. The EU policy framework with its two concepts 
did not provide for a clear division of labour.  

Moreover,  when  the  EU  initiatives  related  to  SSR  are  being  implemented,  there  have  been 
cases  where  they  seemingly  operate  on  parallel  tracks.  EU  external  action  instruments 
programmes  on  SSR  and  CSDP  missions  have  separate  decision-making  structure  and  may 
therefore  also  have  sometimes  strong  overlaps51.  Informal  coordination  through  regular 
meetings  on  the  ground  or  formal  liaisons  have  helped  to  mitigate  overlaps.  However,  as 
identified for example in the Lessons Learnt Report of 2014 on CSDP, there can sometimes 
be misunderstandings on the roles of the EU Delegations and CSDP missions with regard to 
the  representation  of  the  EU,  political  and  security  reporting,  and  donor  coordination  in  the 
security sector despite the guidance on these issues outlined in the Joint Communication on 
the “Comprehensive Approach to External Conflicts and Crises”.  

Regarding  the  coherence  of  EU  initiatives  on  SSR  with  other  international  actors/donors,  it 
was  found  that  there  has  been  a  need  for  the  EU  to  try  and  agree  on  key  political 
objectives and key lines of action with international partners for a joined-up approach 
during the strategic planning stage of CSDP SSR missions. This should be complemented 
by  coordination  on  the  ground  with  other  international  actors  and  aim  to  ensure  de-
confliction,  complementarity  and  consolidation  of  EU  and  international  efforts  on  SSR.  On 
the  Commission’s  side,  it  was  found  in  the  Thematic  Evaluation  that  there  was  information 
sharing  with  other  international  actors/donors  through  coordination  meetings  at  the 
operational and political level but often there were no coordination mechanisms to agree on 
common objectives or a division of labour.  

6.5 Added-value of the EU and its policy frameworks in SSR 

As  has  been  noted  originally  in  the  2005  and  2006  concepts  on  SSR  support,  the  EU  has  a 
strong added-value in terms of SSR. One key added-value which appears from the findings is 
that the EU could mobilise a vast array of instruments which would not otherwise be readily 
available  to  many  EU  Member  States  or  other  international  actors.  The  2011  Thematic 
Evaluation noted that the EU budget’s capacity to mobilise a critical mass of funding and 
to  resort  to  various  financing  modalities  and  implementation  modalities  was  a  clear 
added-value which could allow a holistic approach to SSR. Alongside the external financing 
instruments,  the  EU  can  also  use  diplomatic  and  other  tools  in  line  with  its  Comprehensive 
Approach. However, this was not fully exploited due to a lack of flexibility and coordination.  

The  EU’s  supranational  nature  was  also  noted  as  one  of  its  key  added-values.  Several 
evaluations  and  studies  noted  that  the  EU  could  call  upon  the  vast  variety  of  expertise  and 
experience from its different Member States through EU external action instruments or CSDP 

51 Based on the draft of the “Country case studies to inform the EU-wide Strategic Framework for supporting 
SSR - Findings from Mali, DRC and Ukraine”. The document will be made publicly available after the 
publication of this Joint Staff Working Document.  

14 

 
                                                            
missions.  These  stem  from  the  various  traditions  and  systems  across  the  Member  States  in 
policing,  justice  and  other  sectors.  This  was  appreciated  in  many  cases  by  beneficiary 
countries.  However,  it  was  also  noted  that  this  was  not  always  fully  exploited  as  not  all 
Member States respond to requests for experts. The CSDP Lessons Learnt Reports also noted 
that CSDP contribution for SSR allowed for the deployment of high-level advisers as a group, 
the use of active-duty personnel which could be perceived as providing high quality advice. It 
also allows for CSDP personnel to be seconded to the institutions/administrations of partner 
countries.  

The  global  presence  of  the  EU  and  its  experience  on  SSR  in  countries  around  the  world 
was also noted to be a clear added-value of the EU. In the 2011 Thematic Evaluation, it was 
noted  that  the  Commission  had  long  experience  in  many  of  the  partner  countries  with 
continuity in terms of assistance and had long-term thematic experience in the fields related to 
SSR. However, it also noted that the weaknesses of the EU Policy Framework on SSR, with 
its two concepts, hampered efforts to maximise the added-value.  

The  positive  perception  of  the  EU  by  partner  countries  is  a  clear  added-value.  The  2011 
Thematic Evaluation found that partners expressed the view that the EU was more neutral 
than other international actors/donors which could render it a more appropriate partner on 
sensitive issues such as SSR. However, the Commission while implementing EU external 
action  programmes  was  not  always  seen  as  a  political  actor  and  thus  struggled  in 
matching its meaningful technical support with appropriate political engagement.  

With  regard  to  CSDP  missions,  it  was  noted  that  in  the  course  of  their  duration  the  EU  in 
general  might  have  had  a  relatively  neutral  reputation  compared  to  other  partners  due  to  its 
principles-based approach. Furthermore, as noted in the study commissioned for the European 
Parliament, the EU can exercise a strong soft power towards third countries, especially those 
covered  by  the  Enlargement  Process  where  the  prospect  of  EU  accession  contributed  to  the 
reform of security institutions. However, the study also noted that this was not always the case 
and  that  the  power  of  attraction  alone  does  not  induce  reform  but  needs  to  be  coupled  with 
political engagement as well as financial and technical support.  

Section 7 – Conclusions 

The findings from the evaluations, studies and consultations have made it clear that SSR has a 
strong relevance in achieving the objectives of the EU’s external action. This relevance has 
intensified in recent years, as per the reviewed ENP and the CBSD framework. However, the 
relevance  of  the  policy  framework  was  sometimes  found  to  be  mixed,  especially  due  to  its 
fragmented nature with two different concepts.  

The findings also note that when it comes to the effectiveness and efficiency of EU support 
for SSR, the lack of institutional capacity, insufficient grounding in the wider governance and 
state-building  framework,  local  contexts,  insufficient  ownership,  and  weaknesses  in 
modalities and monitoring and evaluation have hampered EU engagement.  

15 

 
In  terms  of  coherence,  the  policy  framework  and  institutional  differences  have  hindered 
effective  coordination  and  consistency  in  EU  actions.  The  lack  of  a  long-term  strategic  and 
political  approach  and  unclear  division  of  labour  amongst  EU  actors  and  with  international 
partners need to be overcome. 

When  it  comes  to  the  EU’s  added-value,  it  is  noted  that  the  EU  has  a  wide  range  of 
instruments and expertise. The EU also has made use of its global presence, strong experience 
working on SSR, as well as its perception by partner countries of being neutral and principle-
based.  

The  Joint  Communication  on  Elements  for  an  EU-wide  Strategic  Framework  to  support 
Security  Sector  Reform  to  which  this  Joint  Staff  Working  Document  is  annexed  sets  out 
recommendations on how to implement the findings presented here and further strengthen the 
EU’s engagement on SSR. 

16 

 
Annex I – List of sources consulted 

Commission Evaluations  

Thematic  Evaluation  of  European  Commission  Support  to  Justice  and  Security  System 
Reform, 
2011 
Commission, 
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation_reports/reports/2011/1295_vol1_en.
pdf 

November 

European 

Strategic  Evaluation  of  the  EU  cooperation  with  Honduras,  2002-2009,  April  2012: 
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/strategic-evaluation-eu-cooperation-honduras-2002-2009_en  

Strategic  Evaluation  of  EU  cooperation  with  Jamaica,  2002-2009,  September  2012: 
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/strategic-evaluation-eu-cooperation-jamaica-2002-2009_en 

Joint  Evaluation  of  the  Cooperation  with  Burundi  of  Belgium  the  European  Commission, 
the  United  Kingdom,  February  2014: 
France,  Germany,  Netherlands,  Sweden  and 
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/node/81065_es  

Evaluation  of  the  European  Union’s  Cooperation  with  the  Democratic  Republic  of  Congo 
2008-2013,  European  Commission,  August  2014,  http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/strategic-
evaluation-eu-cooperation-democratic-republic-congo-2008-2013_en  

Strategic  Evaluation  of 
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/strategic-evaluation-eu-cooperation-georgia-2007-2013_en  

the  EU  cooperation  with  Georgia  2007-2013,  May  2015: 

Final  External  Evaluation  of  the  EU  funded  project  –  Support  to  Reform  of  the  Myanmar 
Police Force in the Areas of Crowd Management and Community Policing, December 2015 

Communications and Staff Working Documents 

Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  –  A 
Concept  for  European  Community  Support  for  Security  Sector  Reform,  COM(2006)  253 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
2006 
Final, 
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1453735511168&uri=CELEX:52006DC0253  

Joint  Communication 
the  EU’s 
Comprehensive  Approach  to  External  Conflicts  and  Crises”,  JOIN(2013)  30  Final,  2013: 
http://www.eeas.europa.eu/statements/docs/2013/131211_03_en.pdf  

the  European  Parliament  and 

the  Council  on 

to 

Joint  Communication  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  Capacity  Building  in 
Support  of  Security  and  Development  –  Enabling  Partners  to  Prevent  and  Manage  Crises, 
JOIN(2015) 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
17 
content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52015JC0017 

Final, 

2015: 

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  on  Commission  Work 
Programme  2016  –  No  Time  for  Business  as  Usual,  COM(2015)  610  Final,  2015: 
http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/pdf/cwp_2016_en.pdf  

Joint  Staff  Working  Document  –  Towards  a  new  European  Neighbourhood  Policy, 
SWD(2015)  500 
final,  http://eeas.europa.eu/enp/documents/2015/151118_staff-working-
document_en.pdf  

Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  –  Review  of  the  European 
final, 
Neighbourhood 

JOIN(2015) 

Policy, 

50 

17 

 
http://eeas.europa.eu/enp/documents/2015/151118_joint-communication_review-of-the-
enp_en.pdf  

Council Conclusions 

Council  conclusions  on  a  Policy  Framework  for  Security  Sector  Reform”,  Council  of  the 
European 
2006: 
Document 
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%209967%202006%20INIT  

9967/06, 

Union, 

Council  conclusions  on  the  EU’s  comprehensive  approach,  May  2014,  Document  9644/14: 
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9644-2014-INIT/en/pdf  

Council  conclusions  on  CSDP,  18  May  2015,  Meeting  Document  8971/15, 
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8971-2015-INIT/en/pdf  

Council  conclusions  on  the  Review  of  the  European  Neighbourhood  Policy,  14  December 
2015, Meeting Document 15169/15, http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15169-
2015-INIT/en/pdf  

CSDP Documents  

Annual  2013  CSDP  Lessons  Report,  20  March  2014,  Document  8015/14, 
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8015-2014-INIT/en/pdf  

Annual  2014  CSDP  Lessons  Report,  3  March  2015,  Document  6777/15, 
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6777-2015-INIT/en/pdf 

Court of Auditors Report 

EU Support for Governance in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Special Report No. 9, 
2013: http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR13_09/SR13_09_EN.pdf 

European Parliament Studies 

the  EU’s  Approach 

Assessing 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/433837/EXPO-
SEDE_ET%282013%29433837_EN.pdf  

to  Security  Sector  Reform  (SSR),  January  2013: 

18 

 
Annex II – Synopsis report on consultations undertaken in the process of preparations 
of the Joint Communication on Elements for an EU-wide Strategic Framework to 
Support Security Sector Reform  

Introduction 

The  stakeholder  consultations  undertaken  to  provide  views  and  input  for  the  EU-wide 
strategic  framework  for  Security  Sector  Reform  (SSR)  have  covered  a  wide  range  of 
stakeholder  categories.  Through  the  publication  of  the  Roadmap  (14  December  2015)52 
describing  the  current  context  and  existing  challenges  and  explaining  the  objectives  of  the 
new  framework,  an  invitation  to  the  wider  public  to  provide  input  was  launched.  Targeted 
consultations have also been made throughout the development of the initiative. These have 
been  addressed  to  EU  platforms,  public  authorities,  consultancies,  research  entities  and 
academia.  More  precisely,  structured  discussions  were  held  with  representatives  from  civil 
society  organisations  established  in  the  EU  as  well  as  in  third  countries,  EU  government 
representatives,  and  representatives  of  think  tanks,  research  institutes  and  universities.  A 
detailed list of the events is included below.  

For  all  consultations  the  aim  was  to  draw  upon  the  experience  of  experts,  practitioners, 
policymakers and citizens in order to address and formulate a policy framework that would be 
relevant  for  partner  countries  and  in  line  with  EU  policy  objectives.  For  the  consultation 
events  held  after  the  publication  of  the  Roadmap,  the  Roadmap  was  disseminated  as 
background  document.  For  the  events  held  before,  the  main  elements  of  the  Roadmap  were 
orally presented at the beginning of the consultation events but not shared in written form.  

All consultation events focused on specific topics and participants were given an opportunity 
to express views on key questions deemed to be of specific relevance to that particular target 
group.  The  questions  were  formulated  to  specifically  gather  input  in  areas  where  the 
stakeholders had an experience and where they could play a role in helping the application of 
the  new  policy  framework.  Vast  majority  of  the  discussions  served  to  test  and  validate  the 
findings and reflect on the recommendations from previous evaluations and reports of, inter 
alia, donor agencies, Member States think tanks, international and local NGOs. 

Unless specified explicitly below, the overall outcome of the consultation process shows that 
there was an overwhelming consensus over the general indications on the best way forward in 
transforming EU support to SSR in order to make it more efficient and relevant.  

It should be noted that the open public consultation carried out on capacity building in support 
of  security  and  development  in  third  countries  included  some  aspects  linked  to  support  to 

52 Roadmap; Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council: Elements for an EU-wide 
Strategic Framework for supporting Security Sector Reform (SSR), http://ec.europa.eu/smart-
regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_eeas_001_cwp_security_sector_reform_en.pdf 

19 

 
                                                            
SSR.53  The  results  of  this  open  public  consultation  are  reflected  in  Annex  to  the  Impact 
Assessment of this initiative.   

Main issues 

The  main  issues  resulting  from  the  different  consultations  are  presented  below  as  well  as 
references to how the matter has been addressed in the Joint Communication.  

I. Political engagement and political dialogues 

Security  sector  reform  in  any  given  context  and  EU  support  to  security  sector  efforts  is 
political  in  nature.  Advancing  in  SSR  processes  requires  constant  dialogue  both  within  a 
national  framework  and  between  the  EU  and  the  other  relevant  international  actors  and  the 
partner country in question. This should be borne in mind when planning and implementing 
inventions supporting reform. The development of a framework for political dialogue between 
the EU and partner countries could be a way to establish a tool and a platform to engage in a 
discussion in a more structured manner on security issues. This would also help steering the 
focus  away  from  technical  issues  related  to  programme  objectives  and  issues  linked  to 
financing which are often short term in nature and do not always link to the political context 
in  which  they  have  to  be  addressed.  Lastly,  such  a  framework  would  assist  the  political 
messaging at various levels and help keeping the security issues on the agenda of the overall 
partnership.  

Engaging  in  political  dialogue  on  security  issues  would  require  more  specialised  skills  and 
capacities  both  at  EU  headquarters  and  at  the  field  level.  Therefore,  the  need  for  more  and 
better  use  of  SSR  expertise  has  been  noted.  Furthermore,  linking  up  with  efforts  of  other 
international  actors  could  be  a  way  to  capitalise  on  existing  experience  and  to  build  on  and 
link up with existing processes, instead of addressing issues in isolation and independent from 
country and regional contexts.  

Response  in  the  Joint  Communication:  references  are  included  in  various  parts  highlighting 
the importance of systematic  political  and policy dialogues. In that context issues related to 
human rights, rule of law, democracy and good governance are highly relevant and should be 
discussed  and  monitored  also  in  relation  to  support  to  SSR.  The  need  for  coordination  of 
interventions across the EU tools and instruments but also with other multilateral and bilateral 
actors is also essential. The idea of a “coordination matrix” on the ground in partner countries 
is proposed as a basis to make commitments of partners more structured. The need for more 
specialised SSR skills is addressed separately focusing on strengthening the institutional set 
up  at  EU  headquarters  level  as  well  as  how  to best  use  capacities  in  EU  delegations  and  in 
CSDP missions.  

53 The process and outcomes of this public consultation can be publicly accessed at: 
http://eeas.europa.eu/consultations/news/cbsd_public_consultation_en.htm 

20 

 
                                                            
II. The importance of local ownership  

In  all  consultations  the  importance  of  local  and  national  ownership  going  beyond  national 
authorities was stressed. The significance of ownership is closely linked to sustainability and 
to  catering  for  local  needs  and  being  adaptable  to  a  local  context.  Any  support  to  reforms 
needs to start with understanding the local context, identifying the national security and non-
security sector actors and what their interests are. The need to achieve local ownership has to 
be taken into account from the very beginning of a support programme/intervention - already 
at the stage of its conceptualisation. Local ownership should be sought throughout the formal 
structures  of  the  national  authorities  (from  top  to  bottom)  but  also  by  reaching  out  and 
involving  communities.  Civil  society  and  non-governmental  actors  are  useful  vehicles  for 
understanding  local  contexts  as  well  as  to  build  trust  and  understanding  around  security 
issues. Furthermore, a financial contribution from the partner country and not only relying on 
foreign funding helps in increasing the national ownership at the more formal level.  

Response  in  the  Joint  Communication:  the  link  between  ownership  and  sustainability  is 
highlighted. It is underlined that ownership implies involving a wide range of stakeholders not 
only to be informed about the SSR processes but also to formulate, plan and implement local 
needs and measures. Often community based solutions have a bigger potential to be sustained 
than  solutions  proposed  from  outside  the  community.  The  role  of  civil  society  and  local 
community representatives play an important role in promoting local and national ownership 
and help increase participation.  

III. Governance, accountability and effectiveness 

While many interventions are labelled as security sector reform, few EU support actions take 
a  sector-wide  approach  and  opportunities  to  address  strategic  governance  issues  are  missed. 
Parts of the early stages of conceptualisation of SSR support should systematically include a 
focus  on  management,  accountability  and  transparency.  The  involvement  of  national 
parliaments  and  their  function  to  provide  an  oversight  function  and  strengthen  the 
accountability  in  SSR  processes  is  often  not  sufficiently  taken  into  account.  Similarly,  civil 
society is important in its watchdog role. However, in many cases security actors are seen as 
opponents rather than partners to civil society organisations and there are few platforms for 
dialogue between the two groups.   

Response  in  the  Joint  Communication:  the  good  governance  principles  are  key  guiding 
principles  for  the  new  strategic  framework  and  are  discussed  from  the  outset  in  the  joint 
communication.  The  need  for  well-functioning  systems  of  internal  and  external  controls  is 
also referred to. Furthermore, the recommendation to anchor SSR processes and support in a 
wider governance approach should facilitate the effectiveness of interventions.  

IV. Human security and trust-building 

In order for service  delivery to be effective and  well-focused starting with a bottom up and 
human (or people-) centred approach is considered suitable. When developing SSR processes, 
there is a need to consider how policies and measures will have a direct impact on the security 

21 

 
needs of the population. Early involvement of civil society and community representatives to 
better  target  the  needs  of  the  people  actually  affected  by  the  security  actions  has  been 
highlighted.  Civil  society  organisations  can  play  a  key  role  in  ensuring  a  people-centred 
approach by liaising directly with local populations and by helping to assess local needs. This 
approach will also enhance the level of trust between the security actors and the population at 
large; but also between representatives of civil society and security forces. Building trust is a 
key  element  in  SSR  processes  which  are  often  sensitive  in  nature  especially  in  conflict  or 
post-conflict situations characterised by violence committed by security forces. SSR needs to 
be gender sensitive and a gender balanced team should be considered for the CSDP missions.  

Trust  is  also  linked  to  understanding  SSR  processes.  The  importance  of  available  and  clear 
information  about  the  policies  and  measures  helps  to  demystify  the  security  sector.  It  is 
necessary to avoid a too technical SSR discourse which excludes many individuals from the 
opportunity to influence policy and actions that affect them. 

Response  in  the  Joint  Communication:  the  strategic  framework  clearly  states  that  the  EU 
should help the partner country in its task of ensuring the security of individuals, as perceived 
and experienced by them. Human security is a key objective for any national security sector. 
The strategic framework proposes that security needs of different groups should be assessed 
through participatory consultation processes. This could for example be done through security 
perception  surveys.  A  specific  consideration  of  the  different  needs  of  women,  minors  and 
elders is also highlighted.  

Timeline of main consultation events54  

•  19 November 2015  

Meeting held in Brussels with representatives (mainly SSR experts) from EU Member States. 
The event was a one day workshop mixing plenary sessions with break-out group discussions. 
Facilitation  and  technical  support  was  provided  by  The  Geneva  Centre  for  the  Democratic 
Control of Armed Forces/The International Security Sector Advisory Team (DCAF/ISSAT). 
The  outcome  of  the  consultation  was  a  consultation  report  summarising  the  discussion 
without apportioning specific comments or positions to individuals.  

The event discussed the following themes: 

−  Political engagement to support implementation 

−  Governance, accountability and effectiveness 

−  Generating and sustaining capacity 

−  Supporting local ownership and building sustainable solutions 

54 Unless indicated specifically, the reports, notes and briefs following each consultation round were not make 
public at the moment of publication of this document. This may be due to the sensitivity of the issues raised 
during meetings, procedures of the event organisers or specific rules pursued during the discussions (such as 
Chatham House rule). 

22 

 
                                                            
•  4 December 2015 

Meeting with civil society organisations (CSOs) held in Brussels. The CSOs invited had been 
selected  based  on  their  experience  in  the  security  and  justice  sectors  as  well  as  their 
implementation  experience  from  various  geographical  regions.  The  event  was  a  one  day 
workshop  mixing  plenary  sessions  with  break-out  group  discussions.  The  group  discussions 
were  facilitated  by  representatives  from  CSOs.  Technical  support  was  provided  by  the 
European  Peace  building  Liaison  Office  (EPLO).  The  outcome  of  the  consultation  was  a 
consultation  report  summarising  the  discussion  without  apportioning  specific  comments  or 
positions to individuals. 

The event discussed the following themes:  

−  Political engagement to support implementation 

−  Governance, accountability and effectiveness 

−  Supporting local ownership and building sustainable solutions 

−  Community security and service delivery-focused interventions  

•  24 February 2016 

Joint  meeting  with  EU  Member  State  representatives  in  the  Council  preparatory  bodies: 
Politico-Military  Group  and  Committee  for  Civilian  Aspects  of  Crisis  Management55.  The 
consultation  was  made  within  the  regular  format  of  a  meeting  of  the  Council  preparatory 
bodies.  In  this  case  the  SSR  agenda  point  was  discussed  in  a  joint  format.  The  Roadmap 
served  as  a  background  document  and  the  discussion  centred  on  the  following  specific 
questions:  

1.  Based on the lessons learnt, what are the key elements that would need to be reflected 

in the new EU wide strategic framework on support to security sector support? 

2.  How  can  CSDP  missions be 

jointly  planned  with  development  cooperation 
interventions to increase coherence and complementarity? What are the challenges and 
opportunities?  

3.  In specific countries, how can EU Member States SSR interventions be coherent with 
EU  SSR  interventions  (Security  and  Development  Nexus).  Can  this  be  achieved 
through joint planning exercises? What are the challenges and opportunities?  

•  10 March 2016 

Meeting  with  EU  Member  State  representatives  in  the  Council  preparatory  body:  Working 
party on Development Cooperation56. The consultation was made within the regular format of 

55 Agenda of the meeting, http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/CM-1615-2016-INIT/en/pdf 
56 Agenda of the meeting, http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/CM-1798-2016-INIT/en/pdf 

23 

 
                                                            
a meeting of the Council preparatory body. The Roadmap served as a background document 
and the discussion centred on the same specific questions as in the case of 24 February 2016 
Joint  meeting  with  EU  Member  State  representatives  in  the  Council  preparatory  bodies: 
Politico-Military Group and Committee for Civilian Aspects of Crisis Management.  

•  14 March 2016 

Meeting  with  EU  Member  State  representatives  in  the  Council  preparatory  body:  Military 
Committee  Working  Group.  The  consultation  was  made  within  the  regular  format  of  a 
meeting of the Council preparatory body. The basis for the discussion was the Roadmap and 
an internal discussion note “Military Input to the EU-wide Strategic Framework for Security 
Sector Reform”.  

•  18 March 2016 

Meeting  with  experts  and  academics  relevant  to  the  field  of  security  sector  reform. 
Facilitation and support was provided by EU Institute for Security Studies57. Experts invited 
had been selected based on their expertise in the security and justice sectors. The meeting was 
a one day event structured around four themes presented in panel discussions with moderators 
from the EU institutions and EUISS. The panels covered the following themes:  

a) State vs human security 

b) Good governance in the security sector 

c) Risks taken when engaging in the security sector 

d) Lessons learnt in SSR 

•  Targeted on-line consultation (February 2016) 

An  online  consultation  questionnaire  was  sent  to  four  civil  society  organisation  networks. 
These are: European NGO confederation for relief and development (CONCORD), European 
Peacebuilding Liaison Office (EPLO), Human Rights and Democracy Network (HRDN) and 
Voluntary  organisations  in  cooperation  in  emergencies  (VOICE).  The  on-line  consultation 
was open 2 February – 29 February 2016. The subject of the consultation was translated into 
the following specific themes and questions:  

Political and policy dialogue 

At which stage(s) and to what extent should civil society organisations (CSOs) be involved in 
dialogues on security sector reform? 

Given the sensitivity of the security sector, what are the best ways of involving CSOs in these 
dialogues? 

57 One of the outcomes of this consultation round was an EU ISS non-paper “Tackling the Challenges of SSR”, 
www.iss.europa.eu/publications/detail/article/tackling-the-challenges-of-ssr/ 

24 

 
                                                            
Community security 

How could coherence between top-down and bottom-up approaches be ensured?  

Please provide practical examples of grassroots-level SSR activities which have had a positive 
impact on efforts to reform the security sector at the national level. 

Good governance 

Please provide practical examples of how transparency could be ensured in SSR programmes. 

What  kind  of  CSO-led  initiatives  could  have  the  most  impact  in  terms  of  fighting  against 
abuses and corruption in the security sector?  

Ownership 

How  could  EU  support  to  SSR  programmes  help  to  increase  trust  between  security  sector 
actors and CSOs? 

How  could  CSOs  contribute  practically  to  trust-building  and  information-sharing  between 
local communities and state security actors?  

In  a  context  in  which  the  EU  has  made  political  commitments  to  support  SSR  efforts  but 
preparation  time  is  limited,  what  are  the  most  important  factors  to  consider  in  order  to 
increase local ownership?  

How could CSOs play a better role in overseeing the implementation of SSR programmes by 
national authorities?  

Gender 

How  could  the  security  sector  take  into  consideration  and  address  the  specific  needs  of 
women, both as actors within it and as beneficiaries?  

Transitional justice 

Please provide examples of and/or lessons learnt about relations between transitional justice 
and SSR in post-conflict countries.  

Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) 

Please provide examples of and/or lessons learned about relations between DDR and SSR in 
post-conflict countries.  

•  Request for input from EU Delegations and CSDP missions and operations (April 2016) 

Input  based  on  experiences  from  the  field  was  provided  through  a  consultation  with  all 
relevant  EU  Delegations  and  all  CSDP  missions  and  operations  covering  all  geographic 
regions. The themes covered were:  

25 

 
 
−  Need for (further) SSR engagement in the specific partner country; 
−  Usefulness of joint analysis and challenges; 
−  Effectiveness of political dialogue and policy dialogues with partner countries; 
−  Coordinated  planning  of  EU  engagement  in  SSR  including  complementarity  and 

sequencing of instruments and tools; 

−  Best practices of coordination during the implementation phase; 
−  Success factors needed for expected impact. 

26