8 Conclusion and recommendations
8.1 Main recommendations
n The laws governing the licensing of PDGCs should be reviewed in order to reduce prohibitive bureaucracy.
Consideration should also be given to the introduction of more detailed criteria for the licensing of both companies and personnel so as to further raise industry standards.
n The MoI should revisit the question of PDGC registration to discover whether unregistered personnel are operating, taking action to rectify any gaps in enforcement.
n Non-governmental actors should continue to monitor the activities of PDGCs with a particular emphasis on identifying any cases of improper political links.
n PDGCs should enhance self-regulation by introducing a progressive code of conduct for members of the current trade association.
n Donors, when conducting any SSR project support, should encourage the Government of Moldova to address the role and impact of the private security sector in the provision of security in the country. Further, donors should undertake an evaluation of the private security industry when conducting their security sector assessments with an eye to supporting greater regulation and oversight.
n The police services and PDGCs should not be competing for commercial security contracts. A clear separation between the private and public sectors and the services they provide should be established to prevent potential conflicts of interest arising and corrupt practices occurring.
n Greater transparency is required by the authorities of both Republic of Moldova and Transdniestria. In particular the Transdniestrian authorities should publish details concerning PSCs operating in the territory they control, and any regulations that apply in this area.
Romania
1 Background to the privatization of security
Romania’s transition from communism began in 1989 with the ousting and execution of Nicolae Ceaucescu during the ‘December Revolution’, a revolt against a highly totalitarian and oppressive government. Although the country was initially burdened with economic difficulties arising from its obsolete industrial base and command-oriented production, it was spared the civil unrest and inter-ethnic conflict that afflicted its Balkan neighbours.
After a long period of reform, the Copenhagen European Council in December 2002 provided Romania with a road map, with the objective of EU membership
in 2007. Accession talks were completed in December 2004, and NATO membership achieved in March 2004 after substantial restructuring of the Romanian armed forces and its defence system in line with Euro-Atlantic practices. Despite these successes, if Romania is to attain its target of EU membership in 2007, further progress is still needed in several areas ranging from judicial and public administration reform, to civil service development, combating corruption and economic restructuring.1
As in other countries, diminishing state involvement in the security sector during the transition from Communism created a demand for protection of privatised goods and services in Romania. A number of factors have contributed to the growth of the sector in Romania, including an opaque and in-egalitarian transfer of public goods into private hands during the transition period which, coupled with a corrupt and poorly functioning judicial system, has led to widespread distrust in the state and its security providers.2 PSCs first began to operate in 1991 - 1992. However, it was not until 1996 that the first law to regulate them was introduced. The Romanian Security Association states that 994 PSCs have obtained licences to operate in the whole country as of 2003, although this high number can be explained by provisions within Romanian law, which requires companies to set up protection of their assets either internally or externally. Thus, the market for private security has become a lucrative one. More than half of licensed PSCs in Romania are operating in Bucharest.3
Officially there are 37,291 employees working for PSCs. The best known domestically owned companies include Bidepa, RPG, Cameleon, UTI, CPI Security, Cobra, Securit Force, BGS, Argus, Global Security and
Romguard.4 The largest PSC employs 2,000 people (Bidepa) and a number of companies have around 1000 employees (Romguard for example). There is a third tier of companies, which employ around 500 people (e.g.
Cameleon 2010). The rest of the market is made up of small companies that generally employ anywhere between 40 - 100 guards. Companies in this sector of the market face severe competition at the moment and many firms
Guard Dog and Handler, BGS Security, 2005
Copyright © BGS Security, 2005
1 2004 Regular Report on Romania’s progress towards accession, European Commission, Brussels, October 2004, pp 148-151, available on http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report_2004/pdf/rr_ro_2004_en.pdf
2 Despite ongoing reforms, corruption in public and private sectors poses a serious challenge in Romania. ‘Surveys and assessments conducted by both national and international organisations confirm that corruption remains a serious and widespread problem in Romania which affects almost all aspects of society. There has been no reduction in perceived levels of corruption and the number of successful prosecutions remains low, particularly for high-level corruption. The fight against corruption is hampered by integrity problems even within institutions that are involved in law enforcement and the fight against corruption’. Op cit European Commission, p 21.
3 Romanian Police website http://www.politiaromana.ro/serviciul_regim_paza.htm, accessed 28 July 2005.
4 Interviews with Gabriel Mihai, President Romanian Security Industry Association, 21 January 2005, and a number of prominent PSCs; also with Dr. Sartori, Paolo, Italian NCB Interpol Liaison Officer, Italian Representative to the SECI Regional Center for Combating Organised Crime, 28 January 2005.
SER.AND MONT.
Craiova Giurgiu
Mangalia Brāila Brasov
Bacāu
Black Sea
Targu-Mureş Iaşi Timişoara
Arad Transylv Oradea ania
Constanta BUCHAREST
BULGARIA WALACHIA
MOL.
UKRAINE HUNG.
are being absorbed by the larger PSCs as the industry consolidates.5 While the majority of PSCs are nationally owned, the market has steadily opened up to international competition. The largest foreign owned PSCs are Group4Falk (Denmark) and Civica (Italy) although other companies with Italian, Israeli and Spanish owners are known to operate in the country.6 The absolute number of PSCs in Romania is likely to decrease in the future as the consolidation within the industry continues, leading to a domination of the market by the largest companies.
Foreign investment is helping to accelerate this process.
2 Contemporary security threats
Although the private security market is relatively large in Romania, violent crime does not appear to be a serious problem. A total of only 3,800 violent crimes were recorded throughout Romania in 2002, probably reflecting a public perception that the police and judiciary can do little in response.7 Instead, non-violent theft and burglary are the most direct security threats that Romanians face. According to official statistics released by the Romanian government, the police have a relatively successful crime detection rate. During 2003 a total of 99,946 ‘serious’
crimes were recorded, of which 82,325 were solved. In 2003 there were 2,096 recorded criminal offences per 100,000 inhabitants of which the detection rate was 1,519 per 100,000 inhabitants (see below).
Table 1: Recorded Crime 2002-2004.
YEAR RECORDED CRIME PER 100,000 INHABITANTS
2002 1,432
2003 2,096
2004 2,090
Source: Ministry of Administration and Interior.8
Private protection services are typically only required by businesses and/or institutions that need static security.
However, the use of private security is also a reflection of the general public’s distrust of the state authorities, particularly the police and the judicial system, combined with the widespread belief that even if one is caught the system can be manipulated by investing the right amount of financial resources or connections. In this environment the use of deterrence (e.g. security guards) is often seen as a more effective means of crime prevention than relying on the state. The perception that the state is unable to protect its population stimulates demand for alternative means of security thus indirectly assisting the privatization of security.
3 Services provided by Private Security Companies
The PSC industry in Romania seems to have a fairly wide customer base. Clients include businesses, politicians and international organisations. Commercial enterprises in Romania are required by law to take care of the protection of their assets and most of the larger companies have decided to outsource this function to PSCs.9 Several foreign embassies, including those of Italy and the UK, also employ PSCs to provide security services for consular sections and for cultural activities as do the World Bank and other international development organisations.10 It is not particularly common for individuals to hire PSCs and only 1 - 3 per cent of householders are thought to employ security guards.11 Geographically the private security industry is especially active in the
5 Romanian Police website, www.politiaromana.ro, accessed 28 July 2005.
6 For instance the Danish-owned Group4Falk recently invested in Romania by acquiring and merging a number of locally owned PSCs. The local management have been kept, in accordance with the informal rules governing the Romania economy.
7 Country Profile for Romania, Economist Intelligence Unit, 2005.
8 Official Ministry of Administration and Interior. Available on http://www.mai.gov.ro/Documente/Bilant%20MAI/Plan%20operational.pdf.
9 Law No 333 from 2003; and interview, Gabriel Mihai Badea, President, Romanian Security Industry Association, 21 January 2005.
10 Interviews with Nicolae Stoenescu, General Manager Cameleon 2010 (PSC), 18 January 2005; Ioan Stangu, General Manager, Prompt Guard Private Security company, 19 January 2005; op cit Badea.
11 Ibid.
capital Bucharest, but also in the country’s second city of Timisoara, around the country’s borders, and along oil pipelines near the Danube River.12
A major part of the private security industry in Romania is concerned with providing static security either for fixed assets or goods in transit. There is also a sizeable market for technical surveillance to the extent that trade professionals estimate there to be more than 150,000 alarm systems in operation in the country (both public and private sector), usually connected remotely either to PSCs or the Police.13 There is also a sizeable market for surveillance in Romania, and one study dating from 1998 estimated there to be more than 160 private intelligence providers in the country, staffed for the most part by former Securitate or military intelligence personnel.14 The total value of the safety and security market is estimated in 2003 to be in the area of USD 100 to 150 million with an expected growth rate of 10-15% per annum in the near future. 15
Some companies specialise in particular aspects of security provision; for instance, ‘Argus’ only provides rapid response security. In what appears to be a new development, some Romanian companies are starting to work outside of the country in conflict zones. In 2004 a Romanian security contractor working for the Sofia based PSC, Bidepa, was killed and another seriously injured providing close protection to the interim head of the Iraqi government. They were attacked when their convoy was going through Hilla, south of Baghdad.16 The incident led the MFA to issue and advisory note to PSCs.17
The overall effect of the sector on security is not entirely clear and is probably somewhat mixed depending on the type of service provided and the company in question. However, several interviewees consulted during the course of this research claim to perceive a tendency towards a reduction in crime rates in areas that are well protected by PSCs.18
4 Affiliations between PSCs and other sectors
4.1 Security sector affiliations
Although it is prohibited in Romanian law for serving police officers to work as private security guards, a number of security guards (especially senior ones) are former members of the army and police. For example the owner of the PSC ‘UTI’ used to be a member of the military and many of the company’s employees were once in the Romanian army.19 The company has had contracts with the Cernavoda nuclear plant, the Romanian Parliament (both houses) and ‘Henry Coanda’ international airport, as well as more general guarding contracts with international actors including the Italian Embassy in Bucharest. Contracts for static security are outsourced to its subsidiary ‘Cobra Security’. As noted above, personnel with a background in the security services are particularly well represented in the surveillance side of the security industry.
In another example of links between PSCs and the public sector, the police signed a unique joint working agreement with several PSCs for a short period in 1998, allowing the police to use PSCs’ cars at a time when
Residential Property Protection, BGS Security, 2005
Copyright © BGS Security, 2005
12 Op cit Badea; Stoenescu.
13 Unpublished study commissioned by the EURISC Foundation in 2003.
14 C. J. Van Bergen Thirion, ‘Privatization of Security: A Blessing or a Menace?’ Pretoria, South African Defence College, 1998.
15 EURISC unpublished study.
16 Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, available on http://icasualties.org/oif/Civ.aspx , accessed 28 July 2005.
17 Op cit Badea; Stoenescu.
18 Op cit Badea; Stoenescu; Stangu.
19 Op cit Stangu, 19 January 2005.
there were insufficient funds to supply enough police cars. More recently a protocol was signed between the police and a number of firms to jointly maintain public order and combat anti-social behaviour.20
It is not uncommon in Romania for the gendarmerie and guards under the authority of local councils to also provide commercial security services. A special branch of the gendarmerie from the Ministry of Administration and Interior (MAI) provides static security services on a commercial basis. A total of 1,196 buildings and 1,222 km of pipelines were guarded by the gendarmerie in 2003. Of these, 348 were contracts for the private sector. Further, local guards under the authority of the local council and the elected mayor can also provide such services.21 With the public and private security sectors in direct competition for contracts there is concern that opportunities for corruption and conflicts of interest will arise. It is therefore important that clear lines of demarcation are established between the two sectors.
4.2 Political affiliations
There seems to be very little evidence that there are explicit links between PSCs and political parties or government officials. However, it is common practice for politicians to hire private security guards to provide protection and other services, perhaps indicating that even the politically active share the population’s distrust of the ability of the state security sector to provide security. 22 This said there does not appear to be a direct relationship between specific political parties and specific companies although this is an issue that cannot be conclusively resolved because of the limited nature of this research.
4.3 Organised crime affiliations
It is not easy to investigate links between PSCs and organised criminal groups (OCGs). Officially there are no connections, but media reports have alleged that links do exist. One of the most recent cases reported in the media involved a security company - Bronec - and its alleged connection to an organised crime cartel centred on a company called VGB.23 Following the election of a new government in November 2004, a judicial investigation into VGB was launched. This is an ongoing investigation and involves many powerful businessmen within Romania.
5 Regulation and conduct
5.1 Legal basis for control of PSCs
As mentioned above, the industry has been regulated since 1996. The current legislation covering the industry is Law No 333 (08 July 2003); ‘Law Regarding the Guarding of Objectives, Goods, Values and People Protection’, State Gazette No 525 (22 July 2003).24 The law requires all companies to obtain an operating licence from the police, and thereafter to submit the details of prospective employees for background checks. Those with criminal records are prohibited from working as security guards. Checks are carried out both by the police and the domestic Romanian Intelligence Service.25 PSC owners, managers and their spouses must submit the following when applying to run a company: identity card and military record; curriculum vitae; medical record; psychological clearance; written proof that the individual concerned has received the necessary training to run a PSC.26 Under the present legislation, company licences need to be renewed every three years by the police – an unduly long period that lowers the probability that poor conduct will result in the revocation of licences.27 The law does not
20 Op cit Badea; Stangu; Romanian Security Industry Association, Newsletter, November 2004, p 3.
21Assessment of Activity in 2003, Ministry of Administration and Interior, Romania, Bucharest, 13 January 2004; Isac Stelian, Deputy Director, The Independent Service for Arms, Explosives and Toxic Substances, Romanian Police, 20 January 2005.
22 Op cit Badea.
23 Ziua newspaper, 09 September 2004.
24 Law Number 333 from 08 July 2003, ‘Law regarding the guard of objectives, goods, values and people protection’, State Gazette No 525, 22 July 2003.
25 Ibid, Chapter II, Section 4, Article 20, Paragraph 2; and Chapter V, Section 2, Article 41, Paragraph 1.
26 Romanian Police website, http://nt.politiaromana.ro/servicii/ordine.shtml, accessed on 28 July 2005.
27 Interviews with PSCs sources, January 2005; op cit Sartori.
distinguish between international and domestic PSCs, allowing foreign firms to operate in the country under the same regulatory framework. At the moment there is also no regulation of Romanian PSCs or PMCs that operate abroad.
Although a media search indicates that the law’s basic provisions are typically being adhered to both with respect to employees and companies, some industry observers have criticised the laws on the basis that they are unclear and open to misinterpretation by the regulatory authorities.28 PSC staff in particular identified the lengthy process for hiring approved staff as being open to abuse.29 One interviewee also stated that the law does not give the police sufficient powers to close problematic operators.30
5.2 Use of force and firearms
PSCs’ use of firearms is currently regulated under Law 17, Regarding Arms and Munitions, introduced in 1996.
Interestingly, Romanian security companies, uniquely in SEE, are not permitted to own their own firearms but must lease them from the police. Pistols and a range of non-lethal devices from irritant sprays to batons and in exceptional cases machine guns31 can be leased. This system means that the police and private security staff carry the same weapons, although PSCs are only allowed to carry firearms after submitting a specific protection plan to the police and obtaining their approval. The process for applying to hire firearms from the police is strict and time consuming, and PSCs must prove that the firearms are absolutely necessary for their work. In addition, they must demonstrate that the company possesses the resources and logistics to store firearms and train their employees in special police shooting grounds on how to use firearms (according to the 1996 Law Regarding Arms and Ammunitions, firearms have to be stored in special steel closets on the company premises, and ammunition stored separately).32 There are no known cases of PSC employees taking firearms home in contravention of the law. Given the cost and effort required to obtain firearms, few Romanian security guards are armed with SALW, and most PSCs tend to arm their guards with less lethal weapons such as batons or chemical sprays. The carriage of concealed weapons is not permitted. 33
However, a new Law of Arms and Ammunitions, adopted in June 2004 and published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004 will considerably liberalise the possession of lethal arms by the general public and consequently by the Police when its operative regulations are finally introduced. In addition, firearms in use by PSCs will in future be registered to individual staff and not to the police. A number of civil society groups have raised concerns about the effects of liberalising the laws on firearms possession, with the backing of some representatives from the police. At the time of writing, these groups continue to lobby the Parliament to toughen the draft secondary regulations guidelines on the law’s implementation.34
Under the current legislation, firearms and ‘non-lethal’ weapons may only be used for self-defence while on duty and in such a way that the ‘rights and freedoms of citizens’ are not in any way harmed.35 As far as this research could determine, this requirement is not elaborated on in the law itself or in regulations on its implementation, but instead in the specific protection plans that PSCs agree with the authorities in each case. Protection plans are also required to comply with the internal regulations of the authorising agency. However, since any one of three agencies (MAI, gendarmerie, or police) may endorse a particular protection plan depending on the circumstances,
28 Op cit Sartori; Stangu.
29 For example would-be PSC employees cannot receive the required training in the subject directly and then seek employment with a firm.
They must first obtain police approval that they do not have a criminal record, then present proof that a firm wishes to hire them to the PSC school. The PSC in question then prepares a dossier of these documents, plus a medical clearance and proof that the company has paid the tuition fee. At this stage police approval of the dossier is again required, and a further letter of approval must be issued by the police.
Correspondence with researcher Radu Ragea, EURISC Foundation, 21 July 2005.
30 Op cit Sartori.
31 ‘Law Regarding Arms and Munitions’. Chapter 6, Section 1, Article 48, Letter K. Op cit Stelian; Stangu; Stoenescu.
32 Op cit Stelian.
33 Op cit Law No 333, Chapter V, Section 3, Article 45, Paragraphs 1 and 2.
34 Correspondence with EURISC Foundation, March 2005.
35 Op cit Law No 333, Chapter 2, Section 5, Article 24.