1 Preventing & Responding to Conflict: A New Approach January 2009

2 17 Post-Conflict Operations Since the Cold War

3 National Security Presidential Directive 44 “To promote the security of the United States through improved coordination, planning and implementation of stabilization and reconstruction assistance…[in] foreign states and regions at risk of, in, or in transition from conflict or civil strife.” Management of Interagency Efforts Concerning Reconstruction & Stabilization

4 How We Help  Civilian Capacity: The Civilian Stabilization Initiative, funded with $55 million in the FY2008 Supplemental, and with $248.6 million requested for FY2009, will create an interagency Civilian Response Corps with Active, Standby, and Reserve components.  Train & Exercise: Seven new Reconstruction and Stabilization (R&S) training courses are being offered for civilians and military at the Foreign Service Institute as part of an integrated training strategy under development. A joint exercise strategy for R&S operations tests the new USG capabilities.  Plan: The U.S. Government Planning Framework for R&S and Conflict Transformation and the Interagency Conflict Assessment Framework, approved in July 2008, integrate planning and assessment across all agencies.  Conduct: The Interagency Management System for R&S, approved in March 2007, provides a new three-tiered system to manage interagency planning and operations.

5  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. Reconstruction & Stabilization Challenges  Lack of common planning and assessment process and reliable measures of progress USG Planning Framework for R&S

6 A New Planning Framework for R&S Supporting & Feedback Activity Tasks Activity Tasks USG Implementation Plans & Execution Washington Field 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 Interagency Implementation Plan -- Interagency-crafted sub-objective concepts; synchronization and prioritization of Agency activities over time and space; monitoring and revision

7 Reduce Conflict Drivers and Strengthen Institutions Strong Weak Large Scale Intervention Drivers of Conflict Lead passed to local actors Goal Local Institutional Capacity Conflict Transformation

8 Reconstruction & Stabilization Challenges Interagency Management System for Reconstruction & Stabilization  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.

9 Interagency Management System for R&S Three-tiered to ensure unity of action at all levels (Washington, regional military HQ, field): Provides policymakers with the tools to plan and conduct integrated whole-of-government responses to highly complex crises affecting U.S. national interests, drawing on the expertise, staff and resources of all relevant departments and agencies. 1.Country Reconstruction & Stabilization Group (CRSG): Washington-based interagency decision-making body, supported by a full-time interagency Secretariat that performs planning and operations functions and mobilizes resources. 2.Integration Planning Cell (IPC): Interagency planners and experts who deploy to the relevant military headquarters to assist in harmonizing civilian and military planning and operations. 3.Advance Civilian Team (ACT): Provides the U.S. Ambassador with the capability to integrate activities in order to achieve unity of effort in the development and execution of reconstruction and stabilization plans. The ACT helps to integrate planning and resource allocation, operations, knowledge management and strategic communication.

10 A New Interagency Management System Field Advance Civilian Team  Country Reconstruction & Stabilization Group -- 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 State Dept. Regional Assistant Secretary, S/CRS Coordinator, National Security Council Director  Integration Planning Cell -- 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 Advance Civilian Team -- 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

11 Whole-of-Government R&S Planning with the IMS Situation Analysis Overview Policy Advisory Memo R&S USG Strategic Plan Interagency Implementation Plan Deputies or Principals Committee Issues Policy COM, then CRSG- PCC, Approves Interagency Implementation Plan CRSG-PCC Approves R&S USG Strategic Plan Strategy Development Led by CRSG Secretariat and Major Mission Element Teams Crisis Response Planning Triggered = Decision Point = Product COM = Chief of Mission ACT = Advance Civilian Team CRSG = Country Reconstruction and Stabilization Group Implementation Planning In support of COM led by ACT Implementation Planning & Sub Objective Teams Proposed Revisions to Strategic Plan and Interagency Implementation Plan Plan Implementation Execution, monitoring and reassessment Policy Formulation led by CRSG Secretariat COM, then CRSG- PCC, Approves changes to the Strategic Plan

12  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. Reconstruction & Stabilization Challenges Civilian Response Corps

13 Days Following Crisis Hire 250 Identify 2000Recruit Days Civilian Response Corps Standing agency capacity for rapid response to assess situation, design response and begin R&S implementation Civilian agency USG employees who have ongoing job responsibilities but are trained and available for deployments USG employees when mobilized, they have regular jobs outside the USG and provide sector- specific response expertise

14 Criminal Justice & Policing Criminal Justice & Policing Economic Recovery Essential Services Diplomacy & Governance Diplomacy & Governance Diplomatic Security State, Justice, Homeland Security and USAID: police, legal, judicial, and corrections personnel -- assess, plan and start up full-spectrum criminal justice operations and development State and USAID: core group of officers to manage mission set up and field teams in assessment, operations setup, planning, program design/startup, military liaison, local engagement Agriculture, Treasury, Commerce and USAID: experts in agriculture, rural development, commerce, taxes, monetary policy, and business and financial services -- assess, plan, and help stand up economic recovery programs USAID and Health & Human Services: experts in public health, infrastructure, education, and labor -- assess, plan, and help stand up essential public services State: Diplomatic Security Agents -- security officers and security planners in the IMS State and USAID: officers covering rule of law, human rights, protection, governance, conflict mitigation, civil society/media, and SSR issues -- assess, plan, and stand up diplomatic, democracy, and governance programs in a crisis The Civilian Response Corps’ Active Officers Planning, Operations & Management Planning, Operations & Management

15 Up and Running New Legislation: The FY09 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is on its way to the President for signature and enactment.  NDAA fully authorizes the Civilian Response Corps and formally establishes the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization within the Department of State. Earlier legislation: FY08 Supplemental appropriated up to $55 million ($30M to State and $25M to USAID) for Active and Standby components of the Civilian Response Corps and to enhance S/CRS operations. S/CRS and USAID will prepare a shared budget for joint implementation.  Will support the hiring of at least 100 new members of the Active component and the training of up to 500 members of the Standby component. $75.2 million FY09 request provides for:  250 new Interagency Active positions  8 weeks of training  Armored vehicles, communications and personal equipment  Basic office support

16  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. Reconstruction & Stabilization Challenges Interagency R&S Training and Education System

17  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.  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. 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  No common repository for capturing and applying lessons learned and best practices.

18 Reconstruction & Stabilization Challenges  Proposed Conflict Response Fund (not approved)  Section 1207 renewed in FY08 NDAA  Funds for deployment of the Civilian Response Corps in the 2008 supplemental  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.