prt mes evaluation n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
PRT MeS Evaluation PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
PRT MeS Evaluation

PRT MeS Evaluation

94 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

PRT MeS Evaluation

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. PRT MeS Evaluation CPPB Workshop

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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?

  5. 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)

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 4. Findings - Unintended effects Heterogeneous PRT-concept Unfulfilled expectations Weak CIMIC Strong army in a weak country; ”Pakistanisation” Distance from population Disadvantaged population groups

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 6. Using the CPPB Guidelines Criteria Relevance Sustainability Impact Coherence Coverage Detailed descriptions useful Linkages and consistency with values less well developed

  13. 7. Questions