PRT MeS Evaluation CPPB Workshop. Outline 1.Background 2.Purpose of evaluation 3.Evaluation approach...

PRT MeS EvaluationCPPB Workshop

Outline

1. Background

2. Purpose of evaluation

3. Evaluation approach

4. Findings

• Plans & concepts

• National directions for PRT

• Are we doing the right things/Desirable effects

• Unintended effects

5. Recommendations (to SwAF)

6. Using CPPB Guidelines

7. Questions

1. Background

• The Provincial Reconstruction Teams were introduced in Afghanistan in 2002

• Extend Afghan Government authority

• Provide a light footprint

• Avoid occupation

• Sweden has been framework nation for PRT MeS since 2006

2. Purpose of Evaluation

• SwAF

• The Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI)

• Jun 2009 – Feb 2010

• Formative evaluation

• Learning focus

• Questions:

• Is the current direction & guidance for the PRT relevant?

• Is the PRT doing the right things?

• Which unintentional effect has the PRT had?

• Which intended or desirable effects has the PRT not achieved?

3. Evaluation Approach

1. Evaluation design and baseline establishment (Jun-Oct 2009)

• Conflict analysis,

• Theory of change

• Develop questions

2. Evaluation execution (Nov 2009)

3. Final report and advice on implementation (Dec 2009 – Feb 2010)

4. Findings - Concepts

• The COIN-doctrine (US) a well thought-out approach

• The PRT concept is heterogeneous and has contributed to fragmentization

• Civil-military coordination needs to be focused

• Parallel structures

• Essential needs

4. Findings - PRT National directions

• National C2

• PRT design

• Large freedom = large responsibility

• Controlling factors

• Taliban forces

• ISAF

• ANSF

• Lessons learned

• The process of D&G

4. Findings - The right things/Desirable effects

• Tactical mobility a constraint

• Security for the population is relatively good in the MeS area

• Rule of law completely missing

• Not a military task, but will affect mission

• Corruption a huge obstacle

• ANA has made progress (autumn 2009)

• ANP are still facing huge challenges

-> Conclusion: Sweden has focused Security line of operation. This is insufficient for a PRT

4. Findings - Unintended effects

• Heterogeneous PRT-concept

• Unfulfilled expectations

• Weak CIMIC

• Strong army in a weak country; ”Pakistanisation”

• Distance from population

• Disadvantaged population groups

5. Recommendations (to SwAF)

• Revise PRT direction

• Improve national C2

• Train COIN at the conceptual level

• Addressing essential needs

• CIMIC

• Don’t ask for needs you cannot satisfy

• Mission tactics for Force Protection

• Improve Mobility

6. Using the CPPB Guidelines

• Is the PRT a CPPB?

• Conflict Analysis

• We made our own

• Crucial step in any CPPB evaluation

• Theory of change

• Made us focus on plans, concepts and doctrine

• Shaped the evaluation

6. Using the CPPB Guidelines

• Criteria

• Relevance

• Sustainability

• Impact

• Coherence

• Coverage

• Detailed descriptions useful

• Linkages and consistency with values less well developed

7. Questions