NGO security survey results - English

Protection for non-governmental organisations on hazardous duties

Report on the results of a UIA survey
by Mario Bettati (note 1)

Well aware of the growing security problems that non-governmental organisations have to face when undertaking humanitarian and other tasks, the Union of International Associations (UIA) has decided to proceed with a study of protection that such organisations require when undertaking hazardous duties, by means of a specific evaluation of the situation as perceived by "on the spot" persons concerned themselves. A questionnaire was prepared for this purpose under our own scientific management, with participation by our team from the University of Paris 2 and in cooperation with the working group from the UIA.

Amongst those non-governmental organisations that replied, some indicated that their activities were not such as to entail "hazardous duties". They were not therefore faced with the problems covered by the questionnaire and, for the same reason, were unable to provide the information requested. Others, such as a leading humanitarian bodies, objected that they did not regard themselves as non-governmental organisations and, while it was true that they had had to encounter serious security problems, they did not wish to answer our questions. Those who agreed to answer them in detail sometimes appended documents to their return indicating their status, main activities and/or a brief history of their tasks.

Having regard to the objectives pursued, which determined the structure of the questionnaire, it was inevitable that each non-governmental organisation should have to make a number of choices when answering each type of question. The results, on passing through a data processing procedure, therefore displayed proportions in terms of quantities and values that varied absolutely in relation to the open question put and to the distribution of the number of replies, itself varying according to subject. The analysis set out below follows the order of the questions and uses the headings printed in the questionnaire. (note 2)

I. Your scope of work

The questionnaire asks the non-governmental organisations questioned to spell out their work sector within the area in which they operated.

A. Your area of work

As far as the operational speciality of the non-governmental organisations studied is concerned, the replies show a clear emphasis on development aid. This finding is increased if those of the replies that were classified as "other" are added; they included agriculture, reconstruction, economic reform, mine clearance and the environment. The heading "Human Rights" could also be usefully extended, since certain organisations included the work they do amongst refugees, immigrants and displaced persons and journalists in the "Others" category. This redistribution would not alter the initial classification, which places particular emphasis on development and human rights as soon as the "Others" sectors, which would be extensively reduced by a redistribution, are left to one side. Activities in defence of human rights are placed in second position - subject to the offsetting mentioned above - amongst the non-governmental organisations preoccupied with a lack of security. This is confirmed by the recent resolution of the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations, which was due to be adopted by the General Assembly, on protection for the protectors of the fundamental rights of the individual.

One notes that the organisations stating that medical activities are included are altogether the least numerous, which waters down the effect of the high profile they enjoy in the public mind, where they are believed to be more exposed because more than most they are in the front line in conflict areas.

B. Your field of work

The results obtained by sampling with regard to the location of non-governmental organisations’ activities and therefore implicitly the location of risks - since the associations who replied are those that are beset by the problems of protecting their members or their property - came as no surprise.

In fact, it is not in the countries of Western Europe or in North America that destitution, the defence of human rights and famine relief are the most pressing topics, even though the work done there is far from negligible. It is, therefore, hardly surprising to see that a high proportion of work is done in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Twice as much work is done in relation to any other area in Africa alone.

II. Type of incidents that have affected YOUR association since 1990

Under this heading, the associations questioned were asked to distinguish between incidents obstructing the proper conduct of duties, where the effect was simply to delay them, to defer them or to complicate their execution, from acts of violence directed against property or persons that had the same effect but with far more serious consequences for individuals and equipment as far as the harmful effects of actions were concerned.

A. Actions obstructing the proper discharge of dutie

These varied in nature. From prevention of access to victims to administrative obstacles to access, with obstruction to the delivery of goods and supplies and restrictions on movement in between.

a) Barred access to victims

While at humanitarian level, the nature of conflicts has changed and rebel movements are more likely than government forces to cause obstruction, it is clear that in other fields of activity, especially in development aid or in defence of human rights, government authorities remain the principal interlocutors. It is therefore not really surprising that they are the principal source of difficulties of access.

b) Administrative obstacles to victim access

Non-governmental organisations have become a source of profit to a large number of protagonists, especially - but not only - in developing countries. The wealth - sometimes ostentatious - of their resources, the distribution that they undertake, and the stocks that they have amassed for this purpose are often a source of temptation for the public or private agencies who have a smidgen of power and who use it to draw some material advantage by taking samples. This explains why the obstacles most frequently mentioned are extensive delays at a checkpoint and requests for payment. The latter demand is most commonly made together with the former. These are the two most frequent obstacles.

But the administrative obstacles are not always dictated by avarice. It also happens that associations come up against refusals to provide visas or delays at the frontier for political or bureaucratic reasons. Delays are relatively less frequent than they used to be, but refusal of a visa is still a considerable problem.

The United Nations has on numerous occasions since the early nineties demanded freedom of access to humanitarian aid for victims in connection with the various internal conflicts in which the UN has been concerned. We know, for example, that the Security Council adopted 114 resolutions on these lines between 1990 and October 1998. The wordings of the resolutions vary but their content is the same as that found in Resolution 1193 of 28 August 1998 concerning Afghanistan where it "… requires of all Afghan factions, especially the Taliban, to do everything possible to guarantee the safety and freedom of circulation of personnel of the United Nations and other international and humanitarian organisations…" (note 3)

c) Obstacles to the delivery of goods and supplies

It is obvious from the outset that the main factors preventing the delivery of goods and supplies are administrative formalities. They are all the more feared by the associations where their field of work requires them to take urgent action.

Secondly, a finding which supports that which we have set out in the pie chart above, is that "taxation", i.e. a request for payment or sampling from lorry loads, is also one of the major bug-bears complicating associations’ actions on the ground.

d) Restrictions on freedom of movement

These restrictions are not a prime concern. They are spread fairly uniformly amongst the various categories of obstacle, with a low point where the withholding of residence permits is concerned, which ultimately is less widespread than the other difficulties. The important position occupied by threats or assaults will be noted. They stress, should it be necessary, the breadth of risks run by the organisations and their personnel. Finally, a third source of restrictions is the establishing of forbidden areas which, as we know, may be imposed as often by national and local authorities as factions controlling a region.

B) Violence directed against property

A distinction can be drawn between violence against convoys and violence against premises.

a) Against convoy

A distinction must be made between looting strictly speaking and armed attack against vehicles, while listing the main categories of loss sustained.

1. Looting

The persons responsible for looting are divided uniformly amongst public authorities, insurgent movements, and ordinary criminals. This means that the public authorities represent only one third of the sources of insecurity, which makes it far more difficult for the United Nations to impose injunctions on them, since, the weaker or more delinquent a country’s government, the harder it is for its public authorities to control insurgents or ordinary criminals.

2. Attacks against the association’s vehicles

We know that non-governmental organisations for the most part use land vehicles, which explains why there have been no attacks on shipping. There have been only two against helicopters and two against aircraft. This difference and the rest of the results call for no comment.

3. Type of losses sustained by convoys

The distribution of losses in relation to the degree of harm done similarly provides information which is self-explanatory. The substantial proportion of total destruction (28%) compared with partial destruction (43%) is noteworthy.

b) Against premises

Three series of questions were put in the questionnaire, the first concerning those responsible for looting, the second concerning attacks on the association’s installations, and the third concerning the type of damage sustained.

1. Looting

The results here are appreciably different from those concerning persons responsible for tax on convoys. The public authorities’ share in them is very much smaller (19% as against 34%). That of insurgents altogether higher (50% as against 36%).

2. Attacks against the association’s installations

The points of the survey reveal a predominance of attacks against dwellings and offices. Having regard to the wide variety of activities undertaken by the non-governmental organisations questioned, it is going too far to say that the attackers’ objectives were altogether more political than self-seeking or inspired by gain. But it is by no means impossible, either, that the target was selected both as a centre of decision-making and representing the association concerned, and as a source of profit linked to the presence of expensive equipment (data processing, office automation and communication).

3. Type of loss sustained

The replies provide the same pointers as those concerning damage sustained by convoys, within 2% or 3% almost. This is perfectly understandable insofar as vulnerability is much the same, whether the goods are stationary or mobile.

C. Violence directed against persons

The questionnaire asked the associations consulted to provide information on arrests, detention and kidnapping, physical attack, and the reasons for death and injury.

a) Arrest - detention - kidnapping

Replies concerning identification of persons responsible for arrests, detentions and kidnapping are out of line with those received concerning convoys and premises. Ordinary criminals are twice as less likely to undertake these actions against persons, government authorities and insurgents being held equally responsible, at 43% and 45% respectively. This is easily explained by the methods, the purposes and the consequences of these kidnappings, which are more within the capability of organisations of a political nature, equipped with human and institutional resources but endowed with a minimum of structural power.

b) Physical injury

Physical injury is naturally the most serious risk, and that giving rise to the deepest worries regarding security on the ground.

The proportions as between the five categories adopted are all the more alarming since murder, which is placed in second position after degrading treatment, is quite common and, together with the latter, is the main purpose of attacks.

The search for solutions on the part of non-governmental organisations echoes that of the inter-governmental organisations, namely the United Nations (note 4) or the European Union. The United Nations’ findings can be transposed to non-governmental organisations. "The erosion of respect for humanitarian values has led to an increase in the number of civilian victims; it has intensified the need for protection and aid for refugees and other persons affected by a conflict; it has complicated the provision of humanitarian assistance and aggravated the risks facing aid workers."

c) Causes of death or injury

Dominated by fire from automatic weapons and accidents, the causes of death and injury seem to follow an almost equal distribution amongst aggressors and the victims with regard to the physical assault sustained. Such a conclusion would be hasty and incorrect. In fact, although the share of accidents could indisputably be reduced by better preparation and better training of non-governmental organisations’ staff deployed in the field (and we know that nearly all of them work on setting up and imparting preventive and precautionary measures (note 5)), one should add to shooting from automatic weapons bombardment, anti-personnel mines, anti-tank mines and "miscellaneous weapons" a common factor of which is that they are used or deployed by one and the same category of protagonists: the combatants.

III. Your assessment of protection at the present state of international law

The associations seem to expect a great deal from international law since, obviously, the survey reveals a broadly shared desire to see the legal rules promulgated by the Community of States modified so as to strengthen protection.

A) Do you feel satisfied with your present status as a non-governmental organisation with regard to security?

Practically half of the associations that replied (48%) considered their status to be unsatisfactory with regard to security. This is relatively important and appears to indicate that the question requires some thought both at UIA and governmental and inter-governmental levels.

This is more especially so since only 42% of them feel that their status is satisfactory and 10% have no view. This observation is strengthened by the replies to the following question, put in the questionnaire.

B. Should an improvement in the rules of international law be aimed at: …

In effect, a large proportion of replies shows that it is in fact with regard to the international status of non-governmental organisations that requests for legal reform are most frequently heard. Within their status, it is hardly surprising to see the list of concerns headed by protection for the individual, followed by protection of property and lastly that of transport.

Pending solutions in international legislation that could effectively be implemented, empirical solutions are likely to remain the chief contemplatable measures for a long time to come. Their nature remains to be decided. Some could be consensual; others could rely on various kinds of force.

C. Have you arrived at understandings, an agreement or arrangements with local authorities with a view to protection ?

The first, pragmatic method has consisted fairly frequently of negotiating with the authorities on the spot and finding some accommodation, rapprochement or conciliation.

D. Have you had recourse to private security-men for protection purposes ?

The general principle is against this. Private humanitarian organisations reject any cooperation with the armed forces of any party whatever. A lawyer specialising in humanitarian law reiterated in May-June 1992: "Were it to associate itself with one of the armed forces opposing or covered by it, the CICR would lose all credibility in its role as a neutral intermediary and any opportunity of fulfilling this role." (note 6) The situation, as we know, has been quite different in practice. Nearly one-third of the non-governmental organisations that replied (16% sometimes + 30% yes) confirmed they have had recourse to protection by private security-men. One must remember that in circles close to the UNO Secretary-General, there have been worries as to the effects produced by such a practice (large payments made by the humanitarian agency to armed bands who, moreover, had been holding the local population to ransom for some time; destruction of the last shreds of the social fabric through armed men making individual demands much greater than those of the country’s national or regional rulers; indirect financing of the arms market, etc.). It therefore seems difficult to regard such a practice as desirable, the more so since sampling shows that a large majority (71%) of the associations questioned undertaking hazardous duties have never contemplated this step.

E. In what areas do you consider it necessary for the international community to take the initiative to improve protection for non-governmental organisations and that for its own members ?

Fully in line with the replies to the previous questions, it is clear that the associations want to see action from the international community towards improving the status of their personnel.

It remains to be seen as the group’s work continues what types of immunity or privilege should be introduced and within what limits steps that are acceptable to all parties to conflicts and crisis situations causing insecurity to the operators of these organisations could be envisaged.

F. In what areas do you consider it necessary for the international community to take initiatives towards improving protection for your association’s property?

One of the options under question "F" should logically have been placed under question "E". In fact, following an input error, F4 "Integrity of the person" appears under the heading of protection of property and not protection of persons. However, this slip has no effect on the result of the questionnaire. The replies clearly show that, as can only be expected, the organisations questioned attach their priorities to a desire both for integrity of the person and for the protection of property.

Conclusions

The worries expressed by the associations in their replies to the questionnaire - like those which for years have exercised the CICR, whose work in this connection is important - should not be ignored by the inter-governmental organisations who are now adopting a far more systematic attitude than in the past to questions of protection and security.

However, the work has been done relatively piecemeal or scattered in conjunction with the activities pursued by the UN or the European Union in another sector, connected sometimes with non-governmental organisations undertaking hazardous duties and sometimes in connection with security for their own staff. Some, but not all, of their comments can be transposed to the questions under consideration by the IAU. In fact, a report by the Secretary-General on Security of Personnel of the Organisation has been submitted at the United Nations to the Commission on Human Rights in connection with item 8 on the agenda concerning human rights for all persons subjected to some form of detention or imprisonment (note 7). We have in fact seen above (pages 61-62) that detention may be imposed by insurgents as well as government authorities. This report confirms the relevance of the recommendations made by Mrs Bautista, the Special Rapporteur of the sub-committee fighting against discriminatory measures and for the protection of minorities, with regard to United Nations personnel (note 8). At European level, ECHO has embarked on a preliminary study to test the water with various non-governmental organisations working with the European Commission on Security of Relief Workers and Humanitarian Space (note 9). This document was submitted on 18 May 1998 to the Council of Ministers of the European Union concerned with Development which decided to initiate a discussion on security in consultation with Member States. This document has been the subject of various comments by non-governmental organisations. It would be interesting to pool the conclusions obtained with those resulting from the work of the UN Sub-Committee, several recommendations of which seem to apply equally in the non-governmental or trans-national field. The UIA intends to entrust a working group with the preparation of a draft document that will take account both of the non-governmental organisations’ replies submitted and commented on above and of the various multilateral sources.

POSTSCRIPT

On the basis of the results of the questionnaire, the UIA would like to give greater thought to the security of personnel of non-governmental organisations engaged in the field - whether in humanitarian action, the protection and promotion of human rights or development projects - with a view to earmarking points for joint action (between non-governmental organisations and between them and inter-governmental organisations) that could be undertaken to strengthen protection for the organisations themselves and their staffs.

The UIA is launching an appeal to readers to let them know of any interesting work in this connection and to pass on their personal experience or suggestions. The UIA will take contributions received into account when following up on the results of the questionnaire. Besides, the UIA has opened a heading on its Internet site (http://www.uia.org/surveys/index.htm) where the report published above appears together with contributions of a general nature made by the non-governmental organisations, which will assist with the opinion-taking process embarked upon by the UIA.

Communications can be sent by post, by fax or by e-mail to the following address:

Union of International Associations
Rue Washington 40
B-1050 Brussels
BELGIUM

Fax: (32 2) 643 61 91 "attn Bettati"

Notes:

Professor at the University of Paris 2.
Rather less than 100 replies were received. Questionnaires were despatched to 440 international associations. 98 replies were received, i.e. 22.27%.
The countries or situations concerned in these 114 resolutions of the Security Council concerning access to victims are Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Burundi, the former Yugoslavia, Georgia, the Gulf States, Gorny Karabakh, Liberia, Mozambique, the Central African Republic, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Tadjikistan, Yemen and Zaire.
Cf. Report by the Secretary-General on protection for humanitarian aid activities for refugees and other persons affected by a conflict, S/1998/883 of 22 September 1998.
Cf. Security in the Field. Information for staff members of the UN system, United Nations, New York, 1998, 66pp.
SANDOZ (Yves) "Droit ou devoir d’ingérence, droit à l’assistance; de quoi parle-t-on?" Red Cross International Review, No. 795, May-June 1992, p. 231.
E/CN.4/1998/33 27 February 1998
E/CN.4 Sub.2/1992/19.
ECHO working paper, Draft 8.2-19.2.98