Document Library

Managing ‘Post-Conflict’ Zones: DDR and Weapons Reduction

Author: R Muggah
Date: 2005
Size: 36 pages (1.31MB)

Access full text: available online

Summary

How effectively have disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) programmes and weapons reduction initiatives managed the transition from war to peace in post-conflict societies? How can future interventions maximise the chances of securing peace? This chapter from a work published by the Small Arms Survey examines the history of DDR and weapons reduction programmes to identify lessons learnt during past interventions. It argues that future programmes need to exhibit clearer objectives, better co-ordination and improved integration into broader political and developmental reforms.

In the aftermath of war, excess deaths, through violence or disease, often remain high. The increased criminality, proliferating firearms use and degraded healthcare infrastructure of post-conflict societies disproportionately affect the civilian population. The period of economic expansion following the end of hostilities can also lead to violence fuelled by social inequalities.

Development actors are increasingly prioritising security sector and military reform as part of post-conflict reconstruction projects. DDR, a process aimed at reintegrating combatants into civilian life, has supported many peacekeeping missions, although there is little evidence to gauge its impact on post-conflict security. Weapons reduction programmes, which undertake enforced and voluntary curbs on arms use, have more recently been introduced to support DDR operations.

Recent DDR and weapons reduction initiatives have adopted some promising improvements, but they also exhibit various shortcomings:

• Development actors have introduced new incentives for reintegrating combatants and restricting weapons. Public awareness campaigns, Weapons in Exchange for Development programmes, and an increased focus on regional approaches have increased local ownership and community acceptance of post-conflict transitions.
• However, a fixation with disarmament, to the exclusion of reintegration, has eclipsed the over-arching objective of improving security and advancing poverty reduction.
• Lack of consensus on the aims of these programmes has impeded evaluation of their efficacy and has seen them misused as replacements for substantive political solutions.
• Inadequate communication among international agencies and with local populations has led to shortcomings in DDR and weapons reduction initiatives. Lack of co-operation between development actors, deficient financing of programmes and exploitation of reintegration funds by local groups can perpetuate post-conflict divisions.

DDR and weapons reduction must be well-targeted, sensitive to local conditions and integrated into broader governance reform:

• Clear objectives and benchmarks should be specified at the start of DDR and weapons reduction projects, and any cultural, institutional and communication barriers should be identified in advance.
• Interventions which build on pre-existing local institutions to promote reintegration and weapons reduction engender a more sustainable peacebuilding process than voluntary schemes which overlook the local context.
• DDR and weapons reduction should be instituted early in the post-conflict period. These programmes should be undertaken together with security sector reform, but with their own, discrete timetables, distinct from political and developmental reforms.
• Development actors should educate local populations to regard DDR and weapons reduction as initiatives for improving security and development levels, rather than providing “entitlements” to ex-combatants.

Access full text: available online

Source: Small Arms Survey, 2005, ‘Managing ‘Post-Conflict’ Zones: DDR and Weapons Reduction’, Chapter 10 in ‘Small Arms Survey Yearbook 2005: Weapons at War’, Small Arms Survey, Geneva
Author: Small Arms Survey, http://www.smallarmssurvey.org