DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE FOR CITIZEN SECURITY IN LATIN AMERICA Developing South-South Cooperation to manage knowledge and promote democratic governance approaches to citizen security
BRASILIA, 8-9 OCTOBER 2012
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was written by Melissa Andrade, Claudia Melim-McLeod and Danae Issa, based on the speeches, presentations and discussions conducted at the Regional Workshop on Governance for Citizen Security in Latin America held in Brasilia on 8 and 9 October 2012.
DISCLAIMER The views expressed in this report reflect the presentations and discussions which took place at the workshop, and do not necessarily represent those of the United Nations, including UNDP, or UN Member States.
CONTENTS INTRODUCTION: WHY TALK ABOUT DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE FOR CITIZEN SECURITY IN LATIN AMERICA? 3 Citizen security: a priority in Latin America Citizen security: a governance issue Latin America: a pioneer on citizen security issues Brasilia workshop on democratic governance for citizen security
3 3 4 5
PART 1: HOW CAN SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION PROMOTE INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO CITIZEN SECURITY? 6 South-South Cooperation from Brazil: a horizontal process A mechanism to identify, promote and replicate local innovation The UN platforms for South-South Cooperation A case of South-South cooperation strategy on citizen security: the Nicaragua police project
Summary of recommendations on South-South Cooperation for citizen security
6 7 9 10 11
PART 2: WHAT CAN BE LEARNT FROM LOCAL EXPERIENCES TO IMPROVE CITIZEN SECURITY 12 IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES? An integral approach to citizen security policy-making at the local level – the case of the State of Minas Gerais, Brazil 12 Inclusive participation for citizen security – the case of Santa Tecla, El Salvador 14 Promoting security for the poor in Bogota, Colombia 15 Summary of recommendations on local governance for citizen security 16
PART 3: HOW CAN INFORMATION ON CITIZEN SECURITY EFFECTIVELY SUPPORT POLICYMAKING? 17 A Regional initiative to harmonize citizen security indicators – CISALVA’s SES project Modern national citizen security information systems – Mexico and Brazil Qualitative citizen security indicators to inform state policies in Mexico From information to action – participatory policy design at the national level in Costa Rica Gender-sensitive indicators for safe cities – UN Women’s experience in Quito, Ecuador A National Human Security Index for Indonesia Going beyond the Human Development Report in the Caribbean
Summary of recommendations on citizen security information
17 18 20 21 22 23 23 24
PART 4: HOW CAN DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONAL REFORM ADVANCE CITIZEN SECURITY? 25 Making the Police part of the community – Nicaragua and Rio de Janeiro Submitting the Justice system to citizen monitoring – Michoacán, Mexico
Summary of recommendations on institutional reform for citizen security
25 27 28
FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
Workshop agenda Participants list
INTRODUCTION: WHY TALK ABOUT DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE FOR CITIZEN SECURITY IN LATIN AMERICA? In their opening remarks on 8 October 2012, the representatives from UNDP Headquarters, UNDP-Brazil and the Brazilian government highlighted 3 main reasons why this regional exchange on governance for citizen security in Latin America was particularly relevant and timely: (1) the high priority level of the citizen security issue in the region, (2) the high and insufficiently recognized importance of governance to tackle security issues, and (3) the value of sharing innovative successful practices from Latin America.
Citizen security: a priority in Latin America In spite of remarkable achievements in economic development as well as democracy, peace and stability in traditional terms in the last decades in the region, most Latin American countries face important challenges related to extreme socio-economic inequalities and increasing levels of internal threats to the security of their citizens. With the highest rate of homicides in the world as a region (25 homicides per 100,000 persons in LAC1, and 44 in the Central American sub-region alone, versus a world average of 92), citizen security is still currently a major issue in Latin America. Public opinion surveys show that security is the number one concern of a majority of citizens in several countries of the region, in Central America (83% of Salvadorians and 75-76% of Nicaraguans, Guatemalans and Costa Ricans mention crime as the most serious problem facing their country, over economic or any other issues3), but even in countries with relatively lower crime rates such as Uruguay or Chile. Facts and perceptions thus converge to make citizen security a top priority for Latin American policy-makers and societies.
Citizen security: a governance issue Personal security is not only a basic human right in itself but also a condition for the fulfilment of all other human rights, as well as human development. The “human security” concept introduced by UNDP’s 1994 Human Development Report had already operated this shift from traditional “national security” or “State security” to a people-centred approach, and highlighted the fact that human security consisted in enabling people to safely and freely utilize a range of options to develop their lives. The notion of “citizen security”, more restricted than the broader “human security” concept4, refers to “the protection of all persons against the risk of suffering a violent or predatory crime”5, and encompasses all types of crimes against persons as well as crimes against property – including private and public property. It puts the citizen at the centre of
LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean Human Development Report for Central America (HDRCA) 2009-2010 3 HDRCA, 2009-2010 4 Human security broadly includes economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political security. 5 HDRCA, 2009-2010 1 2
security concerns, thus implying that any action meant to improve security should focus on the needs, rights, and engagement of citizens. With citizenship as the essence of security achievement, the citizen security concept puts the emphasis on the State-citizen relationship, the rights and responsibilities of citizens in matters of security, and the obligation of the State to protect them from criminal threats. Democratic governance is thus critical to citizen security. Any durable improvement of citizen security will necessarily require more responsive institutions, including a genuine improvement of performance of the typical security institutions (police, courts, prisons) but also other public service sectors ; more inclusive participation of all citizens, especially the most marginalized groups (even those communities systematically excluded because labelled as “dangerous”), and a range of non-State actors (private sector, civil society organizations, media) in identifying problems and contributing to solutions ; and an effort to respect and protect the human rights of all people equally within the design and implementation of citizen security policies. It was also emphasized that citizen security is not a sector of its own nor can be addressed by one sector alone, but requires a coordination of efforts among security and social sectors and organizations. In view of these premises, citizen security is above all a governance issue.
Latin America: a pioneer on citizen security policies Following re-democratization in the 1980’s and 1990’s, a number of LAC countries have recognized this need for going beyond a restrictive approach to security, and the importance of governance in tackling these issues. The 2009-2010 HDR for Central America and the 2011 HDR for the Caribbean both highlight the need for a governance-oriented and more integral perspective on citizen security, taking into account the role of multiple actors in addition to the three “classic” citizen security institutions (police, prisons, penal courts), including all levels of government (national/local/municipal), private sector, civil society organizations, the media, and the citizens themselves. In practice, national and local government entities in some LAC countries have pioneered policies based on this progressive vision with success. The creation, for example in Brazil, of “community police” units who are based in and closer to the communities they aim to protect, coupled with investments in improving social service delivery to the same communities in partnership with NGOs to provide alternative activities and opportunities to the young have proved more efficient in crime prevention than “mano dura” (‘iron fisted’) operations focusing on law enforcement. At the same time, several governments of the region have been investing on the development of statistical and monitoring instruments that allow more precise diagnostics and procedures, with a view to understanding and improving the impact of public policies. As a result, Latin America is the region that has created some of the most innovative approaches to understand, monitor, and tackle security matters with a holistic vision, realizing the general failure of conservative policies to develop more inclusive, participatory and governance-oriented solutions. Certain countries of the region have become champions in the implementation of governance approaches to citizen security, which could greatly benefit other countries of the region as well as beyond. 4
The Brasilia workshop on democratic governance for citizen security It is to make the most of these rich experiences and strengthen mechanisms for knowledge sharing and South-South support in the field of citizen security that the UNDP Oslo Governance Centre (Democratic Governance Group, Bureau for Development Policy) partnered with UNDP Brazil and the Regional Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean, with substantive support from the Crisis Prevention and Recovery team at the Panama Regional Centre, to organize this 2-day workshop, with the following objectives: Provide a forum for exchange of information, experiences and lessons learned in the area of citizen security from a democratic governance perspective; Showcase innovative and replicable practices promoted by UNDP as well as governments and civil society organizations on democratic governance approaches to citizen security; Identify good practices and ways for improvement in the assessment/monitoring of citizen security with a governance perspective; Provide a forum for South-South cooperation, by promoting intra-regional as well as inter-regional fertilization on democratic governance practices, including governance monitoring practices, for citizen security; Produce a Discussion Paper on Citizen Security to be shared with governments, academics and development practitioners in LAC and other regions through the Global South-South Development Academy, an initiative of the UNDP Special Unit for SouthSouth Cooperation. In total, 54 people from 8 countries in the region (Brazil, Barbados, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Mexico and Nicaragua) and Indonesia actively participated in the event. In addition to UNDP staff, participants included government officials, civil society organizations and independent experts (see participants list in annex II).
Left to right: Alejandro Gonzalez Gomez, Chief of Justice of Michoacรกn, Mexico and Paula Mohamed, UNDP Barbados & EC
Left to right: Beto Chavez, Rio de Janeiro Civil Police, Claudia Melim McLeod, UNDP/OGC, and Franklin Martinez, Municipality of Santa Tecla, (El Salvador)
PART 1: HOW CAN SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION PROMOTE INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO CITIZEN SECURITY? Representatives from the Brazilian government as well as the UN and several workshop participants emphasized the need to go beyond the mere presentation of projects to each other between countries, by truly learning how to implement successful citizen security initiatives in different contexts, down to the local state or municipality level. They stressed how difficult it is to actually establish good practices and replicate them within cooperation efforts. In support of this intention to explore concrete means of effective South-South cooperation for citizen security, four specific approaches were shared and discussed: (1) the Brazilian Cooperation Agency’s experience in South-South cooperation, (2) the Latin American Observatory of Local Innovation, (2) the platform offered by the UN Special Unit for SouthSouth Cooperation, and (3) the case of the Nicaraguan Police’s South-South cooperation strategy.
South-South Cooperation from Brazil: a horizontal process Brazil has traditionally provided technical assistance to other countries of the “global South” and is increasingly active in the area of South-South Cooperation, through its dedicated Cooperation Agency (ABC - Agência Brasileira de Cooperação). Box 1: Facts about Brazilian cooperation: There are currently 95 beneficiary countries of Brazilian cooperation, incl. 42 in Africa, 32 in Latin America, 19 in Asia and the Middle-East and 3 in Eastern Europe. Priority countries are Latin America, Portuguese-speaking countries and Haiti. The priority areas of Brazilian cooperation are agriculture (24%), health (18%) and education (11%), followed by security (7%), environment (7%), public administration (5%) and energy (5%). ABC coordinates cooperation efforts in all directions: it negotiates, approves, coordinates and evaluates international technical cooperation in Brazil; coordinates and funds technical cooperation from Brazil to developing countries; as well as identifies, develops and monitors the implementation of South-South technical cooperation projects. For more information see the related presentation in Annex and www.abc.gov.br.
ABC works through close partnerships with all public institutions including executive, legislative and judiciary institutions, public foundations and enterprises, research centres and also with more and more Brazilian civil society organizations. Partnerships with sub-national actors are also an increasing part of this cooperation work. Most importantly, Brazil does not have the intention of being a “traditional” donor. Key characteristics of Brazilian cooperation are that it is entirely demand-led, values primarily horizontal dialogue and partnerships, and does not entail any conditionality. 6
Cooperation projects often consist of a combination of training, advisory services, equipment, direct infrastructure development and support to structural reform. Projects are prepared jointly between Brazil and the partner country. All South-South Cooperation initiatives should fulfil the following criteria: -
Be entirely guided by the demand, in response to countries national priorities; Include the â€œSouthernâ€? element by allowing the Brazilian experience and knowledge to be shared; Promote ownership and local leadership; Aim at producing structural impact and sustainable results; Create opportunities for innovation towards eventual sharing of experiences and reciprocal partnerships.
Within its role in South-South Cooperation, Brazil has also developed several mechanisms for sharing good practices inside the country and eventually with other countries. An example of successful cooperation project in the area of citizen security is a community police project, developed by Brazil and Japan: the community police model was adapted to the Brazilian reality, and after successful piloting SENASP, the Brazilian National Secretariat for Public Security, passed on the knowledge to other states in Brazil. In a third phase, Brazil and Japan are now cooperating with El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica. The most effective way to approach global issues such as public security within South-South cooperation is through a process of mutual learning. This cooperation dialogue will only be successful if there is full autonomy on both ends. In this process, the partner country must have the final say in how to adapt lessons from elsewhere. Cooperation is a process of mobilizing the public power for knowledge transfer, and it relies on shared political will by all the actors involved in order to move forward. It also requires linking with practitioners and ownership of the local government involved. However, it was also recognized that the Brazilian cooperation was not yet consolidated and was still work in progress, still looking to consult and join efforts with new actors.
A mechanism to identify, promote and replicate local innovation Identifying, sharing and replicating good practices within Brazil is both an end in itself and a preliminary condition for sharing those practices abroad. Brazilian Research Centre on Government and Public Administration of the GetĂşlio Vargas Foundation (CEAPG/FGV) has developed a way to identify innovative initiatives on public administration and citizenship at the local level and share and systematize them within a national database on local innovation. It published a call for innovative initiatives implemented or under implementation (at least 12-months old) at the local level (municipal, state or indigenous government level) throughout the country, and selected the most relevant ones based on the following criteria:
Quantitative and/or qualitative change from past practices; Positive impact on the quality of life of beneficiaries; Potential for replication in other regions in Brazil; Enhancement or consolidation of dialogue between civil society and public authorities; Responsible use of resources and sustainability beyond government change.
The database thus obtained provides an overview of what is considered as “innovative” by the different project leaders every year, and allows analysing the diversity of issues faced in different regions of the country and solutions found to deal with them. It contains over 8000 initiatives, covering 10 years (1995-2004) and also includes a summary of all the experiences shared – see http://eaesp.fgvsp.br/ensinoeconhecimento/centros/ceapg. As an incentive for public officials and local leaders to share their experiences, prizes were awarded to the best initiatives in the country, after a thorough selection process by a committee of academics, NGO professionals and civil society leaders in the concerned sectors. 20 finalist projects were rewarded and presented publicly, before 5 winners were selected by a jury of civil society representatives with a specific concern for improving Brazilian public administration. Currently, the CEAPG continues to actively monitor the progress of the finalists and conduct series of analyses on specific areas, using the whole database. After 2004, this database of local innovations was picked up and pursued at the international level, through integration within the Latin American Observatory of Local Public Innovation. The latter was officially created in 2007 after a 3-year process of discussions between the authorities in charge of identifying local innovations in each of the participating countries. Its objective is to establish and maintain a system of observation and monitoring of local public innovations in different countries of Latin America. It seeks to identify and visualize public programmes and experiences promoted by various public and social actors, including governments, civil society organizations or associations of municipalities among others. Today 7 countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru) in addition to 2 regional associations of local governments and municipalities are sharing the same database – which is available on www.innovacionlocal.org. One of several useful conclusions drawn from the analysis of this regional database is that the successful initiatives are in most cases joint initiatives between the different spheres of government and civil society organizations. An important lesson learned from this experience is that the presence of one coordinator dedicated to this type of regional knowledge-sharing initiative is key to its sustainability. A current challenge is to secure the funding required to keep the database alive and maintained while also increasing the visibility of all the information already available in it.
The UN platforms for South-South Cooperation The role of the UN in supporting South-South Cooperation is to act as a convener, bringing actors together, encouraging dialogue, facilitating consensus building and coordination; a broker, matching offer and demand for experiences, expertise and technology; a partnership builder, facilitating inclusive partnership and strategies, mobilizing resources and engaging relevant expertise; and to gather intelligence, compiling and analyzing data, reporting trends and providing support and continuity to intergovernmental decisions. Box 2: Facts about UN support to South-South cooperation: The UN Special Unit for South-South Cooperation (SU/SSC) was established in 1978 by the UN General Assembly. It reports to the UN General Assemblyâ€™s High Level Committee on South-South Cooperation. It is hosted in UNDP but aims to support South-South and triangular cooperation on a UN systemwide basis. For more information see http://ssc.undp.org.
The UN Special Unit for South-South Cooperation supports 4 main inter-related mechanisms: 1South-South policy development; 2The Global South-South Development (GSSD) Academy: offers publications, workshops, communities of practice, experts rosters and more; 3The GSSD Expo: showcases Southern-grown development solutions through Meetings, Solution Exchange Forums, Solutions Exhibition Floor, launching of New Initiatives and Partnerships, Solutions Matching; 4South-South Assets and Technology Exchange (SS-GATE) network: network of virtual and physical venues where entrepreneurs, CSOs and governments can interact and obtain needed technology, assets and financing.
In the area of citizen security, the GSSD Academy is working to support the areas of safety & security and justice, notably through a WIDE Roster Platform powering rosters of experts in these areas. A Discussion Paper on South-South support for Citizen Security will also be produced, based on the present workshop. All participants were encouraged to make use of the platforms provided by SU/SSC by contributing to the SSC policy space; documenting, peer-reviewing and disseminating Southern solutions and expertise; suggesting names for the roster of experts; showcasing Southern solutions, and/or transferring southern technologies.
A case of South-South cooperation strategy on citizen security: the Nicaragua Police project Nicaragua has a relatively lower crime rate than its neighbouring Central American countries, and has become known in the field of citizen security for the relationship it has built between the Police force and local communities, with a focus on human rights and a results-based management approach. This has generated demand from other countries to learn from the Nicaraguan Police experience. With the help of UNDP-Nicaragua, in coordination with the Panama Regional Centre, a SouthSouth Cooperation Strategy (SSCS) was elaborated in order to respond to this demand in an organized, pro-active and flexible manner. As previously mentioned by Brazil, a key characteristic of South-South cooperation is reciprocity, which results in mutual and multiple benefits for all the participating countries. The SSCS allows the National Police of Nicaragua (NPN) to propel itself to the international environment to systematically share its experience and learn from other countries too, and at the same time functions as a capacitybuilding mechanism for the NPN itself, as it requires the strengthening of institutional structures in order to implement, monitor, evaluate and sustain the strategy. The activation of the SSCS implied an effort to develop and present a “model” out of the NPN practice in a generic format adaptable to other contexts, and a mapping of elements in offer and in demand from the NPN as well as the other countries involved. Methodologies developed to implement the strategy include the setup of a network of experts of the NPN, production of communicational and educational material, exploratory field missions and technical assistance missions, bilateral exchanges and study tours between Police Forces, technical and academic training (fora, courses and training of trainers), knowledge fairs on citizen security from the Police’s perspective, etc. So far Central America, Bolivia, Brazil, Venezuela and Egypt are the countries included in this SSCS, which is currently at its piloting stage.
General Commissioner Francisco Javier Díaz Madriz, General Sub-Director of the National Police of Nicaragua, presents the Nicaraguan Police model shared within the NPN’s South-South Cooperation Strategy.
Summary of recommendations on South-South Cooperation (SSC) for citizen security:
SSC is: • Different from traditional donor aid as it does not imply any conditionality; • A horizontal process of reciprocal learning and support between countries of the global South, made of joint initiatives between countries to share, promote and support innovative practices from the South to the South.
To be effective, SSC requires: • Shared political will between all the parties involved at both “ends” of the cooperation agreement; • Concrete learning of how to adapt and implement successful practices, beyond just knowledge sharing; • Translation of detailed written documentation and explanations of the day-to-day operation of the innovative approaches in question, to overcome the language barrier between countries; • To look for “the best local fit” in a particular context rather than “the best practices” in general, as cloning or blind replication of innovative initiatives will not work; • The establishment of mechanisms to identify successful practices and replicate/adapt them elsewhere within one country, first, and then towards other countries – indeed experience and knowledge can only be shared effectively if digested, systematized and owned internally first; • Incentives for innovative local practices to be documented and shared by their leaders, such as an award; • A strategy for South-South support, in order to respond to demand in an organized manner; • Institutional capacity-development in the country providing SSC, in order to be able to share an support effectively and implement, monitor, evaluate and sustain SSC; • Dedicated means and capacity (financial, human, institutional…) for coordination and sustainability; • Extensive partnership development at all levels of the SSC process: between various actors inside the country providing support itself, inside the recipient country, and between the countries involved in SSC. • Follow-up of initiatives benefiting from SSC over time, from both sides of the SSC agreement.
Among other, SSC brings: • Innovation: the identification, promotion and development of innovation at local, national, regional and global levels; • Institutional strengthening and capacity development for all countries involved on both sides of the cooperation, as it becomes a motor for development in itself, through the strategies and mechanisms that need to be established for its implementation as well as its reciprocal character.
SSC is available • A number of SSC agencies, mechanisms and platforms already exist at the regional level in Latin America and at the global level – more countries and actors are welcome to use them!
PART 2: WHAT CAN BE LEARNT FROM LOCAL EXPERIENCES TO IMPROVE CITIZEN SECURITY IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES? Governance at the local level – state, district, city, or municipal level – is critical when it comes to citizen security. In the continuous perspective of learning from successful local practices, representatives of local institutions from Brazil, El Salvador and Colombia shared concrete local experiences of democratic governance approaches to citizen security. The integral approach: Manifestations of violence and factors of citizen insecurity are multiple, and only an integral approach can tackle them durably. Past and current Latin American experience confirms the relevance of such an integral approach and has allowed to develop a generic conceptual and policy framework – see Box 3 below.
Box 3: Citizen Security Conceptual and Policy Framework
As presented by Prof. Hector Riveros from Colombia (translated from Spanish.)
This framework, flexibly adapted to specific contexts, has already proven to deliver results as shown by the first ever sustainable decrease of crime rates and insecurity perception in the countries of the region that adopted it. However, such results are not immediate and continuity and consistency in these security policies are crucial to their long-term success. Institutional capacity building is thus key to guaranteeing these results, as are political will and leadership, partnership between all stakeholders and genuine citizen participation. 12
An integral approach to citizen security policy-making at the local level – the case of the State of Minas Gerais, Brazil One example of successful use of this precise framework was presented by the municipality of Contagem in the Brazilian State of Minas Gerais, where an impressive collaboration process took place within an initiative called “security with the citizens”, with the triple objective to (a) Reduce violence affecting children, adolescents and youth in vulnerable situations; (b) Strengthen capacities of local communities to act for peaceful coexistence and joint security planning and (c) strengthening local governance to ensure sustainability of these actions. A collaboration mechanism was put in place between a number of public institutions, including the Municipality of Contagem, the Ministry of Justice, the Brazilian Cooperation Agency (ABC) of the Foreign Affairs Ministry, UN organizations joined as “one UN” (UNDP, UNESCO, UNODC, UNICEF, UN-Habitat and ILO), and other, as well as private local actors, including leaders of social projects, community leaders, religious leaders, local businesses, children, adolescents, youth, women and mothers. All these actors, organized under the “Municipal System of Social Protection and Prevention of Violence” jointly developed the municipality’s security plan, using the above-described framework to identify causes of and solutions to local violence, with an integral “citizen security” approach and a human development focus based on the MDGs, rather than a traditional security focus. The plan has been under implementation and includes a diversity of measures ranging from municipal police training to the development of cultural, sport and leisure activities, a network of assistance to victims of violence, guarantee of formal education or awareness campaigns to foster a culture of peace. It is already showing positive results. Making this collective effort happen and succeed required careful joint planning and a diversity of targeted activities including regular meetings, technical visits, community meetings, training towards local actors on how to use the framework, thematic sub-group work, specific meetings in each district, media relations and coverage, production and dissemination of materials, etc. For more information see http://segurancacomcidadania.org. State-level initiative:
At the level of the entire State of Minas Gerais, homicide control and public security in general has been a priority since 2003, when a comprehensive state security plan was developed, as embodied in the ´Fica Vivo!´ (literally:“Stay Smart/Stay Alive!”) Programme. Its vision has been an integral one, generating public policies that ensure crime prevention through a citizen security approach based on a multi-causal analysis, which led to the development of plural solutions. It includes two main axes of action: strategic intervention (coordinated action by Federal, Military and Civil Police as well as judiciary organs for more traditional security interventions focusing on enforcement) and social protection. In the social protection axis, a network of public services contributes to crime prevention through assistance to the population, including Crime Prevention Centres which provide citizens at 13
risk with psychological care and a series of activities such as workshops, youth activities groups or local projects to encourage the construction of lifestyles away from direct involvement with crime – for more details see www.seds.mg.gov.br. Similarly to the municipal initiative previously described, a key success factor of this programme was the creation of a network among all relevant institutions, including those in charge of data collection, systematization of information, reporting and follow-up of cases. The challenge now is to think through pilot programmes and continue to innovate after 10 years of work in this area. It is important to systematize what was done and revisit the programme, bringing in new concepts and methods.
Youth and children in Contagem, Minas Gerais, Brazil: beneficiaries and participants in the “Security with the citizens” initiative.
Inclusive participation for citizen security – the case of Santa Tecla, El Salvador Inclusive participation of the concerned citizens is a key element of citizen-centred approaches to security, and a factor of success of integral local security policies, as demonstrated above with the Brazilian examples. In a similar approach, the Municipality of Santa Tecla in El Salvador presented its participatory strategic planning process for security policies focusing primarily on prevention as the essence of citizen security – enforcement being only a complementary component. Fostering citizens’ participation and interaction, encouraging social inclusion and creating public spaces free from violence, thus developing a culture of peace, was major component of the process. The initiative sought to to integrate and unify strategies and policies at multiple levels and helped restore trust in public institutions through citizen participation, institutional mobilization and coordination, which was achieved with the establishment of a council of 21 public institutions,. Having the practical, technical, legal and financial means to follow it through is another important condition of effectiveness and sustainability of such a process is for the concerned local institutions to give themselves. Resource mobilization and the allocation of sufficient budget for the work on citizen security (37% of the total municipal budget in the case of Santa Tecla) are crucial to support all the different lines of action – including the training of a future generation of leaders committed to this new security paradigm. 14
Promoting “security for the poor” in Bogota, Colombia The Secretary of Government of Bogota stressed the distinction between “segregationist” security that focuses on security for a few, and citizen security for all citizens, especially the poor and marginalized. He noted that overall improvements in the security situation had taken place since 2006, after negotiations between the government and the paramilitary groups, innovative actions and policy coherence by the city authorities. However, he described the overall previous tendency as “elitist security”, targeting mainly national level issues such as drug trafficking and terrorism, or problems of concern to well-off population groups such as kidnapping, and rather neglecting the poor. The predominant security paradigm in the city was one of private “self-defence” by those who could afford it, rather than “public” security, which resulted in part of the population acquiring arms or hiring private security services. The current policy aims to fight measures that focused on wealthy segments of society and fostered a self-defence culture through a more integral and inclusive approach, with a combination of strategies, all converging towards a long term strategy for “Territories of Life and Peace”. They include the promotion of political responsibility; adequate information systems; better coordination with the national police; disarmament; and very specific measures to ensure police presence in the most marginalized areas and population groups and during high-risk hours and times of the year, for example: division of the city into smaller territories for the police to cover; intensification of police controls; increased control in critical locations at critical hours; prohibition of alcohol sale and consumption after 11pm; massive security operations on holidays with traditionally peak crime rates due to the consumption of alcohol (Mother’s Day, Valentine’s Day, Halloween, Football Cup Finals, etc.); imposing a curfew for minors, etc. The graphs and figures presented showed that both the homicide rate and the perception of insecurity of the inhabitants of Bogota had strikingly dropped since the beginning of implementation of these actions.
Left to right: Guillermo Asprilla, Secretary of Government of Bogota, Colombia; Beto Chavez, Civil Police of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Claudia Ocelli, Municipality of Contagem, Brazil; Claudia MelimMcLoed, UNDP Oslo Governance Centre; Franklin Martinez, Municipality of Santa Tecla, El Salvador and Michele Silva, Fica Vivo, Minas Gerais, Brazil
Summary of recommendations on local governance for citizen security:
Citizen security is: • A new security paradigm, which has been developed at the conceptual and practical level through innovative thinking and practices in Latin America over the past decade or so, particularly within initiatives at local levels of government – state, city, municipality levels; • An integral approach in which violence is viewed as a multi-causal phenomenon calling for multiple and multi-sector solutions, which require coordination among all actors involved and citizen participation, and whose ultimate goal is human development.
The success of local citizen security initiatives depends on the following conditions: • Violence prevention rather than law enforcement becomes the chore rationale of security policies. • The municipality rather than the police becomes the central agent of citizen security that partners with all other entities (including the police itself) to coordinate complementary actions across all sectors – similarly, at the state-level the state plays this role. • “Collaboration, coordination, partnership, networks, collective effort” between all sectors and all actors concerned, public and private, are the most frequent words used when describing factors of success in citizen security. Research also shows that the most successful local initiatives are those driven by partnerships between government, civil society, police and other actors across all sectors. • Integral security policies include a combination of programmes and actions to improve the quality of law enforcement (through police training and other) and at the same time improve social protection and build a culture of peace in local communities (through alternative activities and other). • Actual citizen participation, including the poorest and most marginalized is systematically ensured in problem identification, planning exercises and implementation of solutions. • Consistency of integral policies in the long term, a key to their success, is safeguarded by putting aside ideologies traditionally attributing security policies to “the right” and social policies to “the left”. • Efforts are made towards institutional capacity-strengthening in legal, financial, operational, technical and technological terms, in view of enhancing the overall response capacity of institutions. • The necessary resources are mobilized and adequate budget is allocated to citizen security. • Strong political will and leadership at the local level are present and sustained.
PART 3: HOW CAN INFORMATION ON CITIZEN SECURITY EFFECTIVELY SUPPORT POLICY-MAKING? Within efforts to tackle citizen security issues in the above-described integral and effective manner, one particular challenge that arises is the difficulty of obtaining reliable and relevant information to identify specific problems accurately and generate corresponding policy and programmatic responses. The most commonly used reference of crime rates per 100,000 inhabitants is recognized as conveying only part of a complex picture, as many crimes go unreported, certain types of crimes such as corruption or domestic violence are often not considered, etc. The capacity of official systems to collect, compare and centralize data on crime reports, citizen complaints, police detentions and court judgements is often weak, thus making accurate statistics practically impossible to obtain. The call for an integral vision and policy-making process on citizen security is accompanied by a pressing need for better, broader and more inclusive monitoring of all its aspects. This includes quantitative data on a broader range of elements and sectors than the restrictive crime rate figure, as well as capturing of citizen perceptions and experiences, and a combination of quantitative and qualitative information to obtain a more complete vision of the reality that is being dealt with. The integral and participatory approach (see Part 2) also implies that all the people concerned by citizen security, both on the supply-side and the demand-side of it, take part in the process of assessing it, in a way that reflects their actual concerns on the ground. Innovative practices on citizen security indicators and their integration into policy-making were shared and discussed, as summarized below.
A Regional initiative to harmonize citizen security indicators â€“ CISALVAâ€™s SES project The Regional System of Standardized Indicators on Peaceful Coexistence and Citizen Security (SES) project, supported by the IADB and hosted at the CISALVA Institute for Peace Promotion and Violence Prevention based in Cali, Colombia, intends to put in place, as a regional public good, a regional system of indicators for the measurement, monitoring and regional comparison of the phenomena of crime and violence, strengthening the capacity of decision-makers to formulate, implement and evaluate citizen security policies. This initiative addresses the fact that the different countries of the region tend to use different basic concepts of citizen security, definitions of homicide or other offences, types of sources of information, methodologies or technological tools, unequal records and data quality, diverse technological tools, etc., which makes the evidence base for regional comparisons, collaboration and policy-making on citizen security issue weak. The project works through a sub technical unit under the relevant government institution in each partner country, which typically brings together representatives from National Police, 17
Judiciary, Ministry of Health, institutions in charge of family/domestic violence, National Statistical Offices and others. It operates under the principles of institutional leadership, decisions by consensus and collective building. After a series of strategic meetings and intensive technical work across the region since 2008, it has managed to develop standardized concepts, make institutional diagnostics, formulate consistent national and regional indicators, produce manuals and protocols for the region, standardize and validate data sets between countries, create regional networks between key institutions and build their capacity. As of 2012, 15 Latin American countries are entering their data into the joint online database – see www.seguridadyregion.com. But a lot of work remains to be completed for further improvement and expansion of the database, sustainability of the initiative and partnership development with other regional and international actors.
Modern national citizen security information systems – Mexico and Brazil At the national level, the Mexican Statistical Institute (INEGI – Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía) offers a world-pioneering practice on citizen security measurement. The INEGI was empowered by a Constitutional Reform in 2006, which gave the Institute the autonomous and independent responsibility of producing objective, transparent and accessible data of national interest, to be considered as official and mandatory information for policy-making at all levels of government of the Mexican Federation. Additionally to the common categories of demographic, socio-economic and geographical data, a new national sub-system of information on governance, public security and justice was created in 2008, with the objective of producing, integrating, managing, conserving and disseminating information on the administration and performance of public institutions in their functions of government, public security and justice, in order to support processes of designing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating policies in these areas. The creation of this sub-system in itself is a major statement of recognition of the crucial importance of governance in citizen security issues as well as the key role of statistics to improve policy-making in this field. Starting from a situation where, like in many countries of the region, information was rare or hardly accessible, scattered and heterogeneous, outdated or even absent, where 32 states each had their own criminal justice systems and tens of thousands of sub-state units used their own data collection systems of unequal quality, INEGI undertook a massive partnership mobilization enterprise to create an Executive Committee and 4 Specialized Technical Committees with several relevant Ministries and other government institutions, police authorities and judiciary institutions at Federal and local level, as well as research and academic institutes, and a number of professional associations in the areas of local governance, security and justice. This allowed harmonizing indicators and data collection
mechanisms and significantly improving registries throughout the country, among other benefits. An additional strength of this system is the diversity of data collection mechanisms and sources used, which allow to triangulate information and include, in addition to administrative data, the actual experiences and points of view of citizens and victims of violence, through national census and victimization surveys as well as perception and satisfaction surveys. Systematic national surveys on insecurity have been conducted yearly since 2009 and national victimization surveys since 2011. INEGI has also been active on the international arena, using the Mexican experience to promote the development of governance and citizen security statistics in other countries of the region and the world. With UNODC support it created a Centre of Excellence with a regional and global vision to develop countries statistical capacities and processes in the areas of governance, public security, victimization and justice, and to continue to produce innovative methods and instruments for measuring these areas. It also presented a proposal to the United Nations Statistical Commission, and organized the first International Conference on Governance, Public Security, Victimization and Justice Statistics in 2012. A second conference is being planned for 2014. See www.inegi.org.mx and www.cdeunodc.inegi.org.mx. In Brazil, the citizen security information system (called SINESP) is hosted in the Ministry of Justice’s National Secretariat of Public Security (SENASP). Data in this area is currently available throughout the country; however, there is no common methodology for data collection across the 27 Brazilian states, which makes inter-state comparisons unreliable – today one cannot base a statement that one state has more violence than another on any reliable evidence. SINESP is currently being revised to unify the language and methodology for data collection across the country, in order to allow a consistent assessment of each region’s performance on citizen security. All the existing information systems will be coordinated under one single Portal, including also the Police’s INFOSEG system, among others. The aim is to make SINESP entirely digital to avoid manual data insertion. Intelligence information will be protected through restricted digital certificatecontrolled access. The states are taking an active part in the debate on this revision of the Brazilian IT system on public security, which is being actively discussed to its implications. But the revision is a necessary and important initiative which has the attention of the President and has become a high priority for the current government – who decided that the states which fail to provide the data requested will not receive certain resources from the federal government, thus creating strong incentives for all to participate and the system to work. In terms of partnerships and coordination, it was noted that the dialogue between the SINESP system and the National Observatory of Citizen Security – a project of the federal government – could be strengthened. 19
Qualitative citizen security indicators to influence state policies in Mexico Qualitative information comes as a complement to quantitative data on citizen security such as the national or regional statistical systems described above, as it helps identify and describe other angles of citizen security issues that cannot be captured by statistics alone, but are equally important as inputs into policy-making or advocacy work. Mexican Research Centre CIDE (Centro de InvestigaciĂłn y Docencia EconĂłmicas) coordinated a network of research institutions, civil society organizations and public institutions to conduct a qualitative assessment of local governance and the performance of the 32 Mexican states in a series of areas, including citizen security. This initiative fills a gap of information on local governance in Mexico. The results allow for in-depth analysis of local public policies and governance in the areas of concern. The assessment report on citizen security describes trends and characteristics on the functions, performance and good practices of the states in this area. It also identifies and elaborates on current key challenges, thus providing state governments with precious information and recommendations on the structural and normative reform of the security and criminal justice systems, the application of the citizen security paradigm, with focus on prevention, citizen participation and proactive police action, human-rights based security policies, or the strengthening of police capacities to foster peace and prevent violence â€“ considering the very heterogeneous capacities of the different states. The database produced with all the information collected offers a combination of quantitative and qualitative data with over 1600 variables, all freely accessible online as a public good for use by decision-makers, advocates, communicators, academics, students, etc. (see www.mexicoestatal.cide.edu). It offers comparable systematized information on all 32 states, thus facilitating studies and the generation of more dialogue between government institutions and academia. The different partners involved in the project are continuing to update the database. But even such an online database and its analysis in academic reports, regardless of how useful the information is in itself, is not sufficient to promote its actual impact on policymaking. This requires a strong communication and partnership strategy to promote policy uptake, which CIDE has also been developing. Reader-friendly reports were produced and launched officially with each concerned state authority and broad media coverage. Several meetings were organized to introduce the database to advocacy NGOs and media organizations. Specific short briefs were produced to aliment electoral debates. New technologies are also being mobilized through online blogs on the project and the development of a mobile app to view and use the database. Besides this specific project, CIDE is also leading a research project on human rights and security in Latin America, including victimization surveys and surveys in prisons. It has also become the CLEAR Centre for Latin America, a World Bank-funded initiative to develop national and sub-national results-oriented monitoring and evaluation systems for public 20
policies and programmes in the region. In this context, it offers training and assistance services to the countries of the region, in a South-South learning perspective – for more information see www.clear-la.cide.edu.
From information to action – participatory policy design at the national level in Costa Rica The Minister of Planning of Costa Rica exposed an example of how the collection of information through a participatory process at the national level can feed directly into policymaking and help improve citizen security policies. POLSEPAZ, Costa Rica’s “Integral and sustainable policy for citizen security and social peace” is the result of an unprecedented massive national consultation and participatory policy development process, directly engaging several thousands of people from the three branches of power, numerous public institutions, political parties, academia, civil society, local communities and other through innovative methodologies including community and sectorial workshops, a free telephone line and social media activity. The rigorous collection and analysis of inputs eventually allowed the elaboration of an integral policy document providing guidelines for the country for the next 10 years. The fact that this policy was elaborated through this inclusive process allows it to provide a comprehensive response to phenomena of violence in the country. It aims to organize the action of the State to engage sustainable processes of construction of trust, peace and quality of life. It includes indications of actions for all three branches of power, local governments and even civil society, does not limit itself to a sectorial approach nor to merely reactive measures. Human development is its ultimate goal and underlying principle. Within the POLSEPAZ framework, the joint programme called “Networks for peaceful coexistence and communities without fear” ensures that knowledge and information continue to feed into action, not just as a one-off but as a cyclic process. The point of departure of the cycle is the generation of knowledge through local diagnostics regularly updated, the addition of a victimization module in national household surveys, a specific victimization and violence prevention survey at the district level, mapping of local actors and inter-institutional coordination and social cartography. The data thus obtained is analysed and feeds into political agreements, legal reforms and local development plans, which in turn allow for better local articulation of action and distribution of resources, towards reviving of public spaces, resolution of conflicts and tackling of risk factors, with the goal of achieving peaceful coexistence. Costa Rica is currently facing the challenges of operationalizing the policy into concrete actions and coordinating the various actors for the implementation of the plan designed. More lessons are to be learnt through the policy and programme implementation! For more information see related presentation and www.mideplan.go.cr or www.pnud.or.cr.
Gender-sensitive indicators for safe cities – UN Women’s experience in Quito, Ecuador Within inclusive approaches to citizen security assessments and policy-making, gender sensitivity of indicators is crucial to acknowledge and assess the particular situation of women and girls, who are victims of specific forms of violence, in order to address it adequately. UN Women supports the “Safe Cities” initiative currently piloted in 5 cities in the world, including Quito. Its objective is to prevent and reduce violence against women and girls in public spaces, particularly all forms of sexual violence, and to integrate a gender focus into governments’ security agendas. It also intends to produce a global model of safe cities for women – cities where women and girls can enjoy public spaces and social life without fear of being assaulted, raped or killed, and where they can participate in taking decisions that affect the communities where they live. The municipality of Quito, where about 70% of women are fearful of being attacked in the public space and 42% affirm having been victim of sexual harassment, is adopting the integral, cross-sectorial approach implied by the citizen security paradigm. In this perspective, it has taken significant steps to obtain more accurate information on the specific challenges of women and girls, captured through its own local gender violence index. The elaboration of Quito’s index of violence against women and girls involved a participatory process to identify and characterize the specific violence problems and conceptualize each category identified – abuse, assault, sexual violence, symbolic violence etc. A combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods was proposed, and a matrix of 52 indicators was developed, organized into 4 main dimensions (exclusion from public space; sexual violence and human rights; differences in exclusion of different categories of women; perception of risks and violence in high risk zones), crossed by 3 transversal axes (inclusion, participation and power relations) – see Box 4.
Box 4: Quito’s index of violence against women and girls
Presented by UN Women-Ecuador and Quito Municipality
The key importance of a having strong gender sensitivity in citizen security approaches and better linking gender issues and security policies was highlighted by all participating countries. In Brazil, the government is currently working to define a national standard on gender violence, including consideration of the relationship-level between the aggressor and the victim – an initiative with high demand from the Observatories on security in the country.
A National Human Security Index for Indonesia In an inter-regional South-South cooperation perspective, a delegation from Indonesia, who participated in the workshop to learn from LAC experiences on measuring citizen security, presented its own experience with nationally grown governance indices. The Indonesian Democracy Index (IDI) is the result of a thorough participatory process throughout Indonesia, to reflect the state of democracy at the national level and in each of its provinces. It is a country-led assessment with full national ownership and specificity, which provides useful, policy-oriented information on 28 indicators of civil liberties, political rights and democratic institutions. The IDI has been included as a target in the National Midterm Development Plan (2010-2014) and a budget for maintaining it throughout the implementation of the plan is secured by the State, thus making it sustainable over time, even after UNDP support to the initial initiative has ended – for details see www.gaportal.org/undp-supported/indonesia. Indonesia now plans to develop a second index in a similar, country-led manner: the Indonesian Human Security Index, with technical support from UNDP and the other partners present at the workshop. Other participants mentioned the intention to develop such nationally-led human security indices: for example El Salvador is planning to create an index which reflects manifestations of crime as well as exclusion in the country.
Going beyond the Human Development Report in the Caribbean The 2012 Caribbean Human Development Report on Citizen Security provides an unprecedented level of information and analysis on citizen security with a human development perspective for the Caribbean sub-region – see http://hdrcaribbean.regionalcentrelac-undp.org. The first of its kind for the Dutch and English-speaking Caribbean, the report presents striking – and largely alarming – findings on the status of citizen security and was called by the media a “security wake-up call”. However, this “wakeup call” is not enough to change policies and practices. Some governments are finding it difficult to accept and integrate the report, and the uptake of the data by Parliaments is slower than expected. As a follow-up, UNDP has contacted all the Parliaments in the region and connected with concerned communities, to facilitate democratic dialogue around the report’s results, implications and follow-up actions. The Human Development Office is also organizing a workshop for the media in Barbados, which may be of interest to other countries.
Summary of recommendations on citizen security information: Developing citizen security indicators… • At the regional level, it is useful to harmonize conceptual definitions and indicators of citizen security, in order to facilitate regional comparisons, analysis and South-South interaction, but it is also important to reflect each country’s specificities within the harmonized system. • At the national level, it is necessary to harmonize citizen security information systems in order to be able to compare different provinces or states and better inform national and local policies. • National Statistical Offices, as official providers of public information, have a key part to play in developing and promoting governance and citizen security statistics for use by all audiences – in collaboration with the sectoral institutions dealing with citizen security. • Partnership mobilization, networks creation and collaboration between different institutions and sectors are indispensable for ensuring complete and effective national information systems on citizen security. Similarly, at the regional level, partnerships inside and between all countries involved are conditions of success of regional indicator harmonization initiatives. • Getting all local government units of a country to start reporting into a national harmonized system can be politically challenging, as it implies more exposure, and requires strong political will from the national government accompanied by concrete incentives (e.g. making certain public funding dependent on providence of data for the national information system). • Citizen security indicators should be sufficiently disaggregated, gender-sensitive, and offer a combination of quantitative and qualitative aspects in a complementary manner, in order to provide a more complete and accurate vision of reality. • There are a number of regional- and national-level databases on citizen security available and accessible online as public goods, for all to use.
…to inform and impact action effectively and durably • Regardless of its technical quality and usefulness, the existence and availability of a database is not enough to influence action: it requires a solid strategy to promote the use of the data by policymakers, advocates and others. Such a strategy can include some of the following elements. • “We need to sell better indicators to politicians”6 – current citizen security information systems tend to be too technical in their presentation for generating political interest: more efforts need to be made to better link the technical and the political within the development and presentation of indicators. • Innovative ways of humanizing citizen security data – from crime figures and reports to human images, similarly to Holocaust museums for example – need to be explored. • Local ownership and participation of decision-makers, civil society and citizens in general, together with technical experts, in the process of selecting and developing citizen security indicators, increases the chances of their use. Participatory processes for citizen security information and evidence-based policies can also be powerful tools to bridge gaps between the State and citizens and bring comprehensive responses to violence, while at the same time fostering democratic governance. • Citizen security information should keep feeding into policy-making through a repetitive, cyclic process – not as a one-off activity. • The use of new technologies for promoting citizen security information needs to be further explored. • A Human Development Report on citizen security can be a wake-up call but is not sufficient in itself to stimulate action: it requires follow-up engagement with the concerned actors to be taken forward. 6
Quote by a workshop participant
PART 4: HOW CAN DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONAL REFORM ADVANCE CITIZEN SECURITY? Members of institutions responsible for public security, within the security sector, i.e. mainly the police and the criminal justice system, may in some cases become the very authorities actually threatening the rights of citizens or reinforcing inequalities and situations of ’segregationist’ security. Democratic governance-oriented reforms of these institutions, bringing them closer to all of the citizens they are mandated to serve, can make them more effective, as shown in the 3 experiences described below.
Making the Police part of the community – National and local experiences from Nicaragua and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil The General Commissioner of the National Police of Nicaragua (NPN) presented the experience of Nicaragua in restructuring of the police, which has become known for its good citizen security practice – see also Part 1 of this report. As a product of the Popular Sandinista Revolution in 1979, the NPN was built as the antithesis to the notorious “Guardia Nacional” of the former repressive regime, and respect of human rights and closeness with the community are seen as part of its essence. Its role is seen as a prominently preventive one, and its officially proclaimed goal is citizen satisfaction. In this perspective, it has developed a model called “preventive pro-active community police” on 3 main areas of violence prevention: (1) prevention of youth violence, combining the fostering of a culture of peace, special attention to youth considered at risk and support to social reinsertion with engagement from parents. (2) Prevention and attention to genderbased violence, through a specialized department and personnel to attend to victims of domestic and gender-based violence. (3) a “total education” model of continuous training as an integral part of the police career at all levels, with gender and human rights mainstreamed across the NPN training and rules of practice. Close cooperation between police officers and the population, and citizen participation within an approach of shared responsibility for all security planning and actions are at the chore of this model, and officially formalized through a National Council for harmonious coexistence and citizen security – which also allows for effective coordination with other national institutions that contribute to violence prevention. In terms of results, objective indicators give Nicaragua the lowest crime rate for Central America, and a 2011 perception survey shows that over 70% of Nicaraguans trust the NPN. The Civil Police of the State of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil has also become known for a number of initiatives to bring the Police force closer to local communities, especially the ones at highest risk, in what used to be considered as one of the world’s most dangerous cities. By introducing Pacifying Police Units (UPPs) in 2008 in a number of areas previously dominated by drug trafficking, the state has been able to reduce homicide and robberies. However, as 25
shared in person by a representative of the Rio Civil Police, these policies are still not sufficient to close the gap between marginalized citizens and security forces. Indeed, even if police officers receive training on human rights, this is not always internalized in practice, and at the same time there is a pressing need to reach out to youth at risk. “Papo de responsa” (literally: “responsibility chat”) is a bottom-up spontaneous preventive and educational initiative carried out by the Civil Police in the city to establish innovative communication channels between the police and the citizens, with a particular focus on youth. The project brings people closer together so they can connect and re-think their respective positions and opinions. The methodology is based on encounters and informal conversation between police officers and children/youth, in alternative environments that are not symbolically associated with repressive security and are favourable to open-ended thinking and free expression, such as schools. The aim behind these open conversations is to have young people understand that they can achieve much more than their immediate environment can provide, in order to introduce a sense of hope.
Above, left and right: the Nicaraguan National Police at the service of and together with the citizens. Hereunder: A Police Officer from the Civil Police of Rio de Janeiro chatting with schoolchildren within the “Papo de responsa”
Making the Justice system accountable through citizen monitoring – Michoacán, Mexico In June 2008, Mexico adopted a series of far-reaching constitutional reforms designed to transform its criminal justice system from one based primarily on written record to a more open adversarial system of justice where trials are oral and public. The State of Michoacán translated this reform into its own constitution in 2011 and is now starting to implement the reform through a double process: through necessary technical and juridical actions, on the one hand, and on the other hand a broad awareness programme for raising citizen knowledge of and participation in the new system, by changing the form, contents and channels of communication between the Judiciary and the citizens. In a context where only an estimated 15 out of 100 crimes were reported, 1 out of 4 court cases are settled and trials take place several months after they have been requested or often get indefinitely postponed, there was a critical need for better communication and coordination between all stakeholders critical. The state’s Judiciary responded by facilitating the establishment of a Council for the New Criminal Justice System of Michoacán, in charge of coordinating the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the reform, joining together the legislative and the executive powers as well as academia and citizen representatives. Among its activities to enhance accountability, the Council coordinates a series of communication and awareness raising actions towards citizens, through substantive and systematic partnerships with education institutions, civil society organizations and media organizations. Additionally, a new participatory monitoring mechanism of the penal system allows taking into account citizens’ views for further planning and implementation of the reform. This is the first time the Judiciary of Michoacán has a communication strategy, and the feeling at this early stage of implementation is that it is already beginning to build trust in the state’s justice system. In general, communication and media relations were highlighted as major issues in this discussion, as the media in several Latin American countries tend to explore the theme of violence in their broadcasting and thus increase the feeling of insecurity, sometimes beyond reality, which in turn further exacerbates citizens’ mistrust in public institutions. Examples of innovative attempts in this area include Costa Rica, where the police is looking to develop a better external communication system, and Panama, where a National Council of Journalists allows for discussions between the government and the media on coverage of citizen security issues.
Summary of recommendations on institutional reform for citizen security: • Prioritizing a preventive, pro-active and community role of the police – law enforcement being only a secondary measure of action – has proven to bring results in improving citizen security. • Changing the “identity” and image of the police in countries, cities or boroughs where it has traditionally been associated with repressive action is key, in parallel with substantive reform. Alternative activities such as informal chats with citizens in education-friendly environments can help change this image. • Similarly, images and perceptions of the justice system can make a difference in the promotion of reform. Developing an innovative communication strategy, in parallel with concrete actions to improve the efficiency of the institution, is crucial. New channels of communication between citizens and judiciary institutions are to be explored. • Relations with and training of the media need to be given more attention, in order to foster more rigor in media coverage of citizen security issues, and thus avoid reinforcing stereotypes to rather help promote reform. In this effect, some LAC countries have attempted to institutionalize media relations.
Above: workshop participants during the debates on institutional reform Hereunder: side meeting of workshop participants following up on county initiatives
FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? In addition to the substantive recommendations summarized above at the end of each of the four main parts of this report, participants worked in groups to elaborate key follow-up steps to keep the community of practice created through this event alive, and continue the promotion of innovative citizen security practices through South-South cooperation. In their conclusions, they described this event as particularly useful, and the first of its kind in the sense that it brought together not only UN practitioners on citizen security but also national actors representing different levels of government and branches of the State as well as independent public institutions, civil society and academia from different countries. The participation of Indonesia was also appreciated and said to represent the first time that a substantive link was being made between Latin America and Asia around these issues. They recommended that similar events are repeated, and more specifically indicated followup directions of two main types: (1) particular thematic issues that would merit further discussion in follow-up events or other work and (2) practical measures to keep the community of practice alive and continue to develop South-South cooperation in the field.
Thematic questions for further discussion: Governance and citizen security indicators, data and information systems: • How to increase the use of citizen security information at all levels of government? • How to better coordinate citizen security information systems, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms that exist at different levels (national and local), not only government-led but also from other organizations, to organize all information available and translate it into concrete action? • How to link citizen security indicators and governance indicators more strongly? • How to produce and present citizen security data in a more politically-relevant manner while maintaining its technical quality and complexity? • How to “humanize” citizen security data to “make it speak” to larger audiences? Assessment of results of citizen security policies: • How to improve and systematize methods for assessing the actual effectiveness and impact of citizen security policies and programmes? Communication strategies and media relations in the field of citizen security: • How to develop and implement more effective communication strategies and methods to support citizen security reform? • How to enhance and institutionalize relations with the media to improve the quality of the coverage of citizen security issues? How to train the media in this perspective? Participation and cross-sector collaboration for citizen security: 29
• How to overcome some of the challenges of inter-sectoral dialogue to promote holistic social policies? • How to create further synergies among diverse actors and sustain them? • How to further promote, coordinate and sustain civil society participation? Education for citizen security: • How to further develop and formally institutionalize multi-faceted educational methods on citizen security, to better target children and youth through the educational system and thus promote future generations of peaceful citizens and leaders?
Practical follow-up measures proposed: To circulate names and addresses of all participants to facilitate future exchanges; To make all documents used by the speakers available to all other participants – not only their presentations but also the substantive documents used to prepare them; To continue a regular exchange of information among participants on the development of indicators and data collection methodologies on citizen security; To make use of existing virtual platforms for a continuous knowledge exchange and discussion on the theme – such as the platforms provided by the UN Special Unit on SouthSouth Cooperation (see Part 1), Teamworks (a UNDP virtual platform where partners can be invited to dialogue and information can be posted) and other. To make use of the existing organizations of regional scope that offer South-South support in the development of citizen security indicators and country-led M&E mechanisms in the field of citizen security. These include CISALVA, INEGI’s Centre of Excellence, and CIDE as the CLEAR Centre for Latin America (see Part 3). To systematize a database of innovative initiatives on citizen security (possibly following the model of the Latin American Observatory of Local Public Innovation – see Part 1), starting with the initiatives already shared in this workshop and other previous events, in order to avoid starting from zero every time a new project is designed. To use the experience accumulated in Latin America to develop universal knowledge and policy advice on preventive citizen security programmes and initiatives. In this perspective, UNDP-RBLAC is currently preparing a guide on public policies in the area of citizen security with a focus on local governance, which will use inputs and materials from this workshop. To explore triangular cooperation approaches for support in the field of citizen security, for example from Brazil to the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) in the Caribbean possibly with UNDP facilitation.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: UNDP Oslo Governance Centre/Democratic Governance Group: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com UNDP Brazil: firstname.lastname@example.org UNDP Regional Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean: email@example.com UNDP Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
REGIONAL WORKSHOP: GOVERNANCE FOR CITIZEN SECURITY IN LATIN AMERICA DEVELOPING SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION TO MANAGE KNOWLEDGE AND PROMOTE GOVERNANCE
APPROACHES TO CITIZEN SECURITY
BRASILIA, 8-9 OCTOBER 2012
In spite of remarkable achievements in economic development as well as democracy, peace and stability in traditional terms in the last decades in the region, most Latin American countries face important challenges related to extreme socio-economic inequalities and increasing levels of internal threats to the security of their citizens. With the highest rate of homicides in the world as a region, citizen security is still currently a major issue in Latin America. Yet, this is also the region which has created the most innovative approaches to understand, monitor, and tackle security matters with a holistic vision, realizing the general failure of restrictive “mano dura” policies to develop more inclusive, participatory and governance-oriented solutions. Certain countries of the region have become leading pioneers in implementing governance approaches to citizen security, which could greatly benefit other countries of the region as well as beyond. To make the most of these rich experiences and strengthen mechanisms for knowledge sharing and South-South support in the field of citizen security, UNDP-Brazil, UNDP’s Regional Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean (RBLAC), the Panama Regional Centre and the Oslo Governance Centre (OGC) propose this event. It aims to provide a space for exchange of information, experiences and lessons learned, as well as joint work towards a better understanding of existing capacities and resources in the region and a sustainable SouthSouth cooperation system to optimize progress in the area.
Welcome all participants and highlight the importance of governance approaches to citizen security, and of SouthSouth cooperation to promote them
Regina Miki, National Public Security Secretary, Ministry of Justice of Brazil
DAY 1: MONDAY 8 OCTOBER 9:00-9:30
Jorge Chediek, UN RC Brazil Claudia Melim-Mcleod, Democratic Governance Adviser, UNDP Oslo Governance Centre
SETTING THE STAGE: DEBATE ON THE VALUE OF SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION TO MANAGE KNOWLEDGE AND PROMOTE INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO CITIZEN SECURITY Chair: Maristela Marques Baioni, UNDP Brazil 10:00-11:00
Keynote speeches: Introduction to South-South Cooperation (SCC) for Citizen Security
Introduction to South-South Cooperation for Citizen Security continued
Lessons learned from Brazil’s experience in South-South cooperation (SSC)
Wófsi Yuri de Souza, Manager, General Coordination of Bilateral Technical Assistance, ABC
Innovation and systematization in the field of public management in Brazil: successes, challenges and sustainability
Jacqueline Brigagão, Lecturer and Researcher, EAESP - FGV
The UN support architecture for South-South Cooperation
Ines Tofalo, Programme Specialist, Special Unit for South-South Cooperation, UNDP
A concrete example of establishing a South-South mechanism for citizen security
Maria Nelly Rivas, Deputy Resident Representative, UNDP Nicaragua
THEME 1: IDENTIFYING AND DISSEMINATING LOCAL GOVERNANCE EXPERIENCES IN CITIZEN SECURITY Chair: Claudia Melim-McLeod, Oslo Governance Centre 14:00-15:45
Learning lessons from experiences of promoting citizen security through local governance
Local-level policy-planning of security in Colombia
Prof. Hector Riveros Serrato, exSecretary of Government of Bogota
Participatory process for integrated policy planning at the local level in Contagem, Minas Gerais State, Brazil
Claudia Ocellli, Secretary Assistant of of Public Policy of Contagem Michele Silva, Fica Vivo
The Fica Vivo initiative of Minas Gerais, Brazil 15:45-16:00
Learning lessons from experiences of promoting citizen security through local governance (cont.)
The experience of the disarmament of Bogotá, Colombia
Guillermo Asprilla, Secretary of Government of Bogota
The “municipios libres de armas” initiative in El Salvador
Councilor Franklin Martinez, Municipality of Santa Tecla, El Salvador
The “Papo de Responsa” initiative in Rio de Janeiro
Beto Chavez, Civil Police of Rio de Janeiro
DAY 2: TUESDAY 9 OCTOBER THEME 2: ENSURING INCLUSIVE INFORMATION SYSTEMS TO IMPROVE POLICY-MAKING IN CITIZEN SECURITY Chair: Danae Issa, Oslo Governance Centre 09:30-11:00
Innovative systems of information on citizen security at the national and regional level
Promoting participatory and inclusive evidence-based policy making on citizen security
CISALVA: Regional Project on Standardization of citizen security indicators
Juan Pablo Gordillo, Regional Project on Standarization of Citizen Security Indicators, CISALVA
The Mexican Centre of Excellence on Governance and Citizen Security statistics
Edgar Guerrero Centeno, General Direction of Government, Public Security and Justice Statistics, INEGI
The Brazilian citizen security information system at SINESP–SENASP
Marcello Barros, SENASP Cabinet Chief, and Rogério Carneiro, SINESP Project Coordinator
Systematization of participatory policy-development at the national level in Costa Rica
Roberto Gallardo, Minister of Planning of Costa Rica
Local Governance Indicators on Citizen Security in the Mexican States
Juan Salgado, Profesor, Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE)
Gender-based indicators on citizen security in Quito, Ecuador
Elizabeth Arauz, UN Women Ecuador and Beatriz Jarrín, Municipality of Quito
THEME 3: PROMOTING INSTITUTIONAL REFORM FOR CITIZEN SECURITY Chair: Pablo Ruiz, Panama Regional Centre 14:30-15:45
Experiences on police reform and citizen monitoring of penal reform
The Nicaraguan National Police Project
General Commissioner Francisco Javier Díaz Madriz, General Sub-Director of the National Police of Nicaragua
Citizen monitoring of the Justice system in Mexico
Alejandro González Gómez, President of the Judiciary of Michoacán
BUILDING THE WAY FORWARD Chair: Pablo Ruiz, Panama Regional Centre 16:00-17:30
Building a South-South support mechanism on citizen security: way forward and next steps
Plenary discussion on best practices identified during the workshop and participants’ recommendations for next steps in sharing experiences and supporting initiatives based on existing and new South-South cooperation mechanisms.
ENCONTRO REGIONAL: GOVERNANÇA E SEGURANÇA NA AMÉRICA LATINA - BRASÍLIA, 08-09 OUTUBRO 2012 REGIONAL WORKSHOP: GOVERNANCE FOR CITIZEN SECURITY IN LATIN AMERICA - BRASILIA, 8-9 OCTOBER 2012
NOME - NAME - NOMBRE
ADILSON SILVA ADRIANA ACCORSI
INSTITUIÇÃO INSTITUTION INSTITUCIÓN SSP-DF SSP-GO
ALEJANDRO GONZÁLEZ GÓMEZ
ALINE LIRA VILLAFANE GOMES BEATRIZ JARRIN CADIMIEL ASSUNÇÃO CARLOS SPEZIA CÍNTIA YOSHIHARA CLAUDIA MELIM-MCLEOD CLAUDIA OCELLI DANAE ISSA DANIEL CARSANA DANIEL RICARDO VARGAS REYES DIEGO RAFAEL ANTONI ELISABETE MORAIS ELIZABETH ARAUZ ELTON MAGALHÃES ERALDO AUGUSCO ÉRICA MACHADO FRANCISCO JAVIER DIAZ MADRIZ FRANKLIN MARTINEZ GABRIELA DUTRA HAYDÉE CARUSO HECTOR RIVEROS SERRATO HELVISNGY DOS REIS CARDOSO HUSAIN MUHAMMAD
SSA -BA PNUD SIS Município Quito SSP-DF ONU PNUD PNUD PM Contagem PNUD PNUD PNUD Colombia PNUD SSP-DF ONU MUJERES SSP-GO SSP-GO PNUD POLICIA NACIONAL ALCADIA STA TECLA PNUD UNB CONSULTOR Ministerio da Defesa UNDP
BRASIL BRASIL BRASIL BRASIL ECUADOR BRASIL BRASIL BRASIL NORUEGA BRASIL NORUEGA EL SALVADOR COLOMBIA MEXICO BRASIL ECUADOR BRASIL BRASIL BRASIL NICARAGUA EL SALVADOR PANAMA PANAMA COLOMBIA BRASIL INDONESIA
firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com aggomez@firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
INDRAJAYA SYUKRI INES MARIA TOFALO IVA LOPES JACQUELINE BRIGAGAO JORGE CHEDIEK JACOB SAID JOSE FERNANDES MOTTA JUAN PABLO GORDILLA JUAN SALGADO JULIANA DALVI KARLA SKEFF
BAPPENAS PNUD - SU/SSC PNUD FGV ONU PNUD SSP - DF CISALVA CIDE PNUD UNESCO
INDONESIA USA BRASIL BRASIL BRASIL BRASIL BRASIL BRASIL MEXICO COLOMBIA MEXICO
firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
LINA MARIA VALÊNCIA MARCELO DE SOUZA MACHADO MARÍA NELLY RIVAS MARINA CAIXETA MARISTELA BAIONI MAURO CABRAL MELISSA ANDRADE MICHELE SILVA MOISÉS SILVA DIAS NENA MACEDO NIKLAS STEPHAN NIVIO NASCIMENTO PAULA MOHAMED PAULO RICARDO DE PAIVA E SOUZA PAULO RUIZ RANDALL BRENES ROBERTO CHAVES ROBERTO JAVIER GALLARDO NUÑEZ
CISALVA PM Contagem PNUD UNODC PNUD SSP - DF RHD SEDS - Fica Vico SSP - DF PNUD UNICEF UNOCD UNDP PNUD PNUD PNUD PCERJ MIDEPLAN
BRASIL BRASIL NICARAGUA BRASIL BRASIL BRASIL BRASIL BRASIL
email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
BRASIL BRASIL BRASIL BRASIL BARBADOS BRAZIL PANAMA COSTA RICA BRASIL COSTA RICA