almanac on security sector oversight in the Western Balkans

Introduction
Below is a compilation of grades given for three of the eight criteria used as indicators
in the methodology of the project Civil Society Capacity Building to Map and Monitor
Security Sector Reform in the Western Balkans, 2009-2011: 1) parliamentary control
and oversight; 2) general transparency; and 3) financial transparency. The information
contained below is by no means comprehensive and is meant only to showcase a
limited selection of the results of the project.
The aim of the grading component of the project was two-fold. On the one hand, a
standardized grading methodology forced researchers to be systematic and compile
evidence based upon clear set of commonly accepted standards. Thus, grading encouraged
uniformity of SSR assessments throughout the region and allowed researchers
from different contexts to employ comparable methods and learn from each other’s
experiences.
On the other hand, the aim of grading, using a scale familiar to both policymakers
and the general public, was to draw attention to key achievements and limitations
of reforms and help spark a dialogue on the drivers, spoilers, and overall benefits of
democratic civilian control over the security sector.
All efforts were made to obtain full disclosure of information from primary sources.
Peer reviews were conducted to ensure consistent use of the grading scale. 234
Final discretion in assigning grades was left to the individual researchers investigating
security sector reform in their respective countries. Their local knowledge and expertise
lends credibility to the grades assigned. In some ways, the uniform grading scale
was constraining, forcing researchers to make judgments based on available evidence,
which was limited in some cases. Despite its limitations, our hope is that these grades
will serve as a useful tool in assessing SSR in each country of the Western Balkans and
in promoting dialogue between civil society, security and oversight institutions and
the public.
The grades given below were determined solely by the researchers from within their
respective countries, based on the findings of their own research. The grades, while
derived from a common methodology, are not meant to be comparative between
different countries. Included are executive summaries of more detailed case studies
prepared by each of the participating CSOs, independent publications of which are
forthcoming. Data and information upon which each grade has been assigned can be
made available upon request to the relevant CSO, each of whose contact information
is included in this volume.
234 The peer review for grades and executive summaries for IMO has not been completed. Their grades
reflect the authors’ views and local ownership of analysis.
274