Prt mes evaluation
Download
1 / 13

PRT MeS Evaluation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 109 Views
  • Uploaded on

PRT MeS Evaluation . CPPB Workshop. Outline. Background Purpose of evaluation Evaluation approach Findings Plans & concepts National directions for PRT Are we doing the right things/Desirable effects Unintended effects Recommendations (to SwAF) Using CPPB Guidelines Questions.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' PRT MeS Evaluation ' - majed


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Prt mes evaluation

PRT MeS Evaluation

CPPB Workshop


Outline
Outline

Background

Purpose of evaluation

Evaluation approach

Findings

Plans & concepts

National directions for PRT

Are we doing the right things/Desirable effects

Unintended effects

Recommendations (to SwAF)

Using CPPB Guidelines

Questions


1 background
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
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
3. Evaluation Approach

Evaluation design and baseline establishment (Jun-Oct 2009)

Conflict analysis,

Theory of change

Develop questions

Evaluation execution (Nov 2009)

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


4 findings concepts
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
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
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
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
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
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 guidelines1
6. Using the CPPB Guidelines

Criteria

Relevance

Sustainability

Impact

Coherence

Coverage

Detailed descriptions useful

Linkages and consistency with values less well developed



ad