Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T15:43:53.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Humanitarian organizations involved in protection activities: a story of soul-searching and professionalization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2012

Pierre Gentile
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, I argue that humanitarian actors are becoming increasingly professional when designing and implementing protection activities in situations of armed conflict and violence. According to my own personal experience, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has undergone drastic changes over the last two decades. The institution has diversified the type of protection activities it can implement; it now gives more attention to various population groups and their ability to develop resilience to different types of threat; and, finally, it is increasingly putting more emphasis on the training and career paths of its field delegates working on protection issues. Such changes are not the exclusive trademark of the ICRC. Many humanitarian and human rights actors working on protection issues have undertaken similar adjustments.

The article notes that much clarity on protection concepts, as well as considerable field experience, has been gained since the 1990s. The number of humanitarian and human rights organizations implementing protection activities in the field has steadily increased. Positive as well as negative lessons learned have been documented and have helped to shape institutional guidance and guidelines. Inter-institutional exchanges have strengthened, allowing the development of professional standards for protection work, to ensure that protection work is as safe and efficient as possible. In the end, this professionalization of the field of protection is in the best interests of both the communities affected by violence and disasters, and the humanitarian field workers confronted by complex challenges.

Type
Changing Actors and Evolving Practice
Information
International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 93 , Issue 884: The future of humanitarian action , December 2011 , pp. 1165 - 1191
Copyright
Copyright © International Committee of the Red Cross 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The introduction to this article elaborates on some elements presented by the author at the Civil Military Affairs Conference 2011, themed ‘Enhancing the Protection of Civilians in Peace Operations: From Policy to Practice’, in Canberra in May 2011; other elements were presented by the author at a Roundtable on Civil–Military Coordination themed ‘The Concept of Protection: Towards a Mutual Understanding’, organized by the ICRC and the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) on 12 December 2011 at ICRC Headquarters in Geneva, available at: http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/report/roundtable-civil-military-coordination-2012-02-07.htm (last visited 2 May 2012). The core of the article is derived from the experience of the author as project manager for the elaboration of professional Standards for Protection Work in 2008–2009, and the subsequent dissemination and discussion of these standards.

2 The ICRC's protection efforts are intended to benefit two categories of persons in particular: (1) those who have been arrested and detained, particularly in the framework of an armed conflict or other situation of violence; (2) civilians who are not or who are no longer participating in hostilities and violent confrontations. Special attention is paid to groups exposed to specific risks, such as children (recruitment of minors), women (sexual violence), and elderly, handicapped, and displaced persons. For a definition of the concept of protection see the section below ‘Towards a greater clarity between different notions of protection’.

3 The different steps follow the logic of a project cycle from the ‘problem analysis’ through the definition of objectives to monitoring and evaluation. For more information, see the public version of this handbook: ICRC, Enhancing Protection for Civilians in Armed Conflict and Other Situations of Violence, ICRC, Geneva, September 2008.

4 While understanding the existing protection needs of a community, an ICRC field delegate should therefore map the existing coping mechanisms and resilience in order to identify any self-protective measures a community has developed that should be preserved or even supported if such mechanisms are efficient in reducing their exposure to risks.

5 Though the selection of relevant activities is usually not related to the applicable legal framework, the definition of any event as violation or abuse, and the subsequent recommendations to the authorities, are based on the applicable law. Thus, the ICRC's analysis must include both a ‘needs’- and a ‘rights’-based approach.

6 The ICRC has developed its capacities in many fields, from forensics to micro-credit for the disabled and group therapy for gender-based violence (GBV) victims.

7 A good example is described by Caroline Douillez-Sabouba, ‘Supporting women in a difficult security environment: the ICRC programmes for women-headed households in Iraq’, in Humanitarian Exchange Magazine, Humanitarian Practice Network, London, Issue 51, July 2011, pp. 7–9.

8 As an illustration of the investment in training, the author participated in five training programmes for protection staff between 1996 and 2007. As head of the Unit dealing with Protection of Civilians, I delivered sessions in six training programmes for protection staff and in a dozen programmes for other ICRC senior staff (assistance, communication, lawyers), and also supervised two specialized training programmes from 2007 to 2011.

9 In past years, the debate on how international military and police forces (especially, but not exclusively, when part of peacekeeping missions) and humanitarian actors can contribute to protection, and how they should or should not co-operate or co-ordinate their efforts has been central. The debate is complicated, as there is a need to distinguish between several scenarios, from large-scale natural disasters to conflict situations in which the military might themselves be involved. The Brookings Institution in Washington (in 2010) and ODI (in 2011–2012) conducted several workshops on the question, putting together humanitarian and military actors. The summaries can be found at The Brookings Institution, ‘Exploring civilian protection: a seminar series (Seminar 1: Understanding protection: concepts and practices)’, Washington, DC, 14 September 2010, available at: http://www.brookings.edu/events/2010/0914_protection_series_one.aspx (last visited 2 May 2012), ODI, ‘Better protected? Stabilisation strategies and the protection of civilians’, Geneva, 25 March 2011, available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/events/details.asp?id=2718&title=stabilisation-protection-civillians-humanitarian-action (last visited 2 May 2012). Last but not least, in Geneva in December 2011, the ICRC and ODI workshop organized a Roundtable on Civil–Military Coordination entitled ‘The concept of protection: towards a mutual understanding’, above note 1.

10 Caverzasio, Sylvie Giossi, Strengthening Protection in War: A Search for Professional Standards, ICRC, Geneva, 2001Google Scholar.

11 Ibid.

12 IASC, Growing the Sheltering Tree: Protecting Rights through Humanitarian Action, Geneva, 2002Google Scholar; Slim, Hugo and Bonwick, Andrew, Protection: An ALNAP Guide for Humanitarian Agencies, ODI, London, 2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Holt, Victoria and Glyn, Taylor, Protecting Civilians in the Context of UN Peacekeeping Operations: Successes, Setbacks and Remaining Challenges, United Nations, New York, 2009Google Scholar.

14 DPKO/DFS, Operational Concept on the Protection of Civilians in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations, DPKO, New York, 2010Google Scholar.

15 William J. Durch and Alison C. Giffen, ‘Challenges of strengthening the protection of civilians in multidimensional peace operations’, Background Paper prepared for the 3rd International Forum for the Challenges of Peace Operations, 27–29 April 2010, Queenbeyan, Australia, hosted by the Asia Pacific Civil–Military Centre of Excellence, October 2010.

16 The African Union organized a five-day Symposium on Protection of Civilians held in Addis in March 2010 to discuss a guidance note that has subsequently guided its thinking on protection, although it remained a draft text for a long time. The text mentions four tiers, because it singles out monitoring on human right abuses. The press release from the African Union on the event mentions: ‘Multi-dimensional approaches to implementing protection tasks for different mission components, including political process, physical protection, rights based protection and the establishments of a secure environment’: press release No. 26, 2010. The text also puts more weight on prevention measures. Nevertheless, it is in line with initiatives taken by DPKO since 2009.

17 The Australian Government, through its Civil–Military Centre for Excellence in Canberra, supported the African Union's efforts, linking key policy-makers within the African Union with military, police, and humanitarian experts.

18 The SPHERE Project defines itself as an initiative to determine and promote standards by which the global community responds to the plight of people affected by disasters. It was initiated in 1997 by a number of humanitarian NGOs and the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. See the website of the project at: http://www.sphereproject.org/ (last visited 2 May 2012).

19 ICRC, above note 3.

20 Louise Searle and Kate Sutton, ‘Standards to incorporate protection into humanitarian response: do they work?’, in Humanitarian Exchange Magazine, Humanitarian Practice Network, London, Issue 46, March 2010, available at: http://www.odihpn.org/humanitarian-exchange-magazine/issue-46/standards-to-incorporate-protection-into-humanitarian-response-do-they-work (last visited 15 May 2012).

21 ICRC, Professional Standards for Protection Work Carried Out by Humanitarian and Human Rights Actors in Armed Conflict and Other Situations of Violence, ICRC, Geneva, 2009Google Scholar.

22 Caritas Australia, CARE Australia, Oxfam Australia, and World Vision Australia, Minimum Agency Standards for Incorporating Protection into Humanitarian Response: Field Testing Version, 2008, available at: http://www.icva.ch/doc00002448.pdf (last visited 2 May 2012).

23 ICVA is a global network of non-governmental organizations that advocates for effective humanitarian action.

24 As its website explains : ‘The Global Protection Cluster (GPC) is chaired by UNHCR, which is the global lead agency for protection. The role of the GPC is to lead standard- and policy-setting relating to protection, support the development of strenghtened protection capacity, and provide operational advice and support when requested by protection working groups at the country level. It also ensures that protection is mainstreamed and integrated in other clusters and sectors.’ Available at: http://oneresponse.info/GlobalClusters/Protection/Pages/default.aspx (last visited 2 May 2012).

25 For example, a twenty-four-page document describing the differences between the 2011 and 2004 editions of the SPHERE Handbook can be found on the SPHERE website that reads: ‘Given their global character, the Sphere Protection Principles are complementary to the professional protection standards, such as those developed by ICRC, which are directed at agencies explicitly mandated or stating that they undertake protection activities. The Sphere principles on protection are for all humanitarian agencies. Protection is an essential component of humanitarian work’. See Sphere Project, 2011 edition of the Sphere Handbook: What Is New?, available at: http://www.sphereproject.org/silo/files/what-is-new-in-the-sphere-handbook-2011-edition.pdf (last visited 2 May 2012).

26 Caritas Australia et al., above note 22.

27 ICRC, above note 21.

28 Sphere Project, The Sphere Handbook: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response, 2011, available at: www.sphereproject.org/content/view/720/200/lang,english/ (last visited 2 May 2012).

29 World Vision UK, Minimum Standards for Protection Mainstreaming, World Vision, London, 2012Google Scholar.

30 As mentioned earlier, over recent years some degree of clarity has been gained on the understanding of the roles and responsibilities that peacekeeping missions and the military can have in protecting populations, thanks to the work of DPKO and others. Lessons were drawn from contexts such as Afghanistan, the DRC, and Côte d'Ivoire; positive interactions on specific subjects (demining and demobilization, disarmament, and rehabilitation (DDR)) as well as clear risks in blurring the lines between humanitarian and military actors were identified.

31 The explanatory notes to the standard introducing the need to monitor and evaluate stipulate: ‘Although in recent years, monitoring and evaluation have been included more systematically in protection planning, the challenge of making this standard practice persists. It is nevertheless now recognized that protection actors have an increased responsibility to establish adequate monitoring and evaluation systems in order to assess the effectiveness of their work – both against their operational objectives, and against broader contextual realities.’ ICRC, above note 21, Standard 7, pp. 21–22. The push for monitoring and evaluation is therefore not donor-driven. It is a necessity if an organization wants to inform its strategy and take the necessary corrective measures in time, especially when such strategies are middle- to long-term ones.

32 Since 2009, the ICRC's documentation centre has been tracking publications on protection of civilians, and every three months it sends a summary of all these publications to colleagues working on protection issues at headquarters to allow them to identify more easily which article they would be inspired to read.

33 As Marie Laure Le Coconnier and Bruno Pommier noted in their history of humanitarian action, in the 1990s humanitarianism became a profession from an academic perspective. Marie Laure Le Coconnier and Bruno Pommier, L'action humanitaire, Que sais-je ?, PUF, Paris, 2009.

34 The HELP (Health Emergencies in Large Populations) is a multicultural and multidisciplinary learning experience created to enhance professionalism in humanitarian assistance programmes conducted in emergency situations. These courses have been given in various parts of Latin America, North America, Africa, Asia, and western and eastern Europe. Some courses have had an overall presentation on protection work; the latest programme does not have a specific session on protection, but several aspects relate to the protection of health workers or the role that health workers can play in issues such as torture and ill-treatment. For further information see http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/help_course.htm (last visited 2 May 2012).

35 Funded by the European Commission's European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO), the Finnish Red Cross (FRC) and the Danish Red Cross (DRC) currently offer a three-day course in humanitarian law and principles for humanitarian professionals.

36 These modules are divided into three sections. The first one deals with basic knowledge linked to protection work. The second section deals with working on the rights and needs of different groups of population – from IDPs, to migrants passing by children, or elderly. The third section is dedicated to protection work in the frame of conduct of hostlities, or law enforcement operations. The modules can be taken in groups or separately. Short ones are done in 30 minutes while longer ones may take two hours to go through. Many examples and key documents are attached.

37 DPKO, ‘Preface: specialized training materials on protection of civilians and prevention and response to conflict-related sexual violence’, available at: http://www.peacekeepingbestpractices.unlb.org/PBPS/Pages/Public/viewdocument.aspx?id=2&docid=1125 (last visited 15 May 2012).

38 UN Women ‘collaborated with DPKO and on behalf of UN Action against Sexual Violence in Conflict to develop an analytical inventory of best practices by peacekeepers to prevent and respond to conflict-related sexual and gender-based violence. This inventory compiles innovative solutions by UN missions, including firewood patrols, community liaison initiatives, and joint protection teams. UN Women will continue to collaborate with DPKO on the development and implementation of scenario-based training material to be undertaken by peacekeepers prior to being deployed.’ See: http://www.unifem.org/gender_issues/women_war_peace/peace_operations.php

39 Australian Civil–Military Centre, ‘Centre launches new documentary on the topic of Protection of Civilians’, available at: http://civmilcoe.gov.au/2011/11/centre-launches-new-documentary-on-the-topic-of-protection-of-civilians/ (last visited 15 May 2012).

40 As the ALNAP guide for humanitarian agencies on protection indicates, this model uses the shape of an egg to think strategically about the different sphere of action in which protection needs to be addressed. It distinguishes three sphere of protective actions gravitating outward from an identified pattern of abuse : 1- Responsive and immediate action aiming to prevent the recurrence of the abuses, 2- Remedial actions taken to restore people's dignity, 3- Environment-building action aiming to create or reinforce an environment – political, social, institutional, cultural, economical, legal- conducive to the respect for the rights of individuals and communities. See H. Slim and A. Bonwick above note 12.

41 One can argue that, even in the absence of legal responsibility, there is a moral duty for humanitarian actors do their utmost to reach the objectives that they set in their programming. Those will nevertheless vary contextually to take into account existing constraints. See ICRC, above note 21.

42 Visits to detainees, one of the trademarks of the ICRC in the field of protection, have evolved to incorporate a more structural approach on top of the traditional individual-centred approach that the ICRC had mastered. Tracing separated family members and looking for people unaccounted for, another feature of the ICRC, has also evolved rapidly with the arrival of new technologies.

43 Integrated responses do indeed, more and more often, integrate protection actions such as advocacy or presence with support aiming to strengthen the autonomy of the target population rather than to create dependence on humanitarian or state assistance; they possibly also comprise psychosocial support.

44 Over the last few years, some workshops have taken place in Canberra, Addis Ababa, and Kuala Lumpur.