Webinar 1: Armed Escorts and the use of Implementing Partners in Iraq – Highlights:
Presentation main points: The operational context in Iraq is very complex. There is an armed conflict with ISIL, a plethora of armed groups, an international military coalition supporting the Government of Iraq, including by conducting air strikes. There is use of significantly heavy weapons and high mobility of military forces. The situation is very fluid. There are check-points throughout the country and the humanitarian situation is characterized by considerable displacement of people, many of whom find shelter with host communities, rather than in camps. Humanitarian organisations are cautious on how and with whom they interact in the field to avoid challenges to de facto and perceived neutrality with/by parties to the conflict. Private companies are used by humanitarian organisations to manage transport in the field. Although humanitarian agencies use implementing partners to conduct the actual aid distribution and make assessments, the transport of goods from warehouses to distribution sites in done by private contractors. It cannot be excluded that these companies further sub-contract the transport task. To stay in business in this volatile situation, companies may prioritise over humanitarian principles so to keep the contract(s) and deliver what is needed timely. When passing checkpoints, the companies may come under pressure to accept escorts, voluntarily or imposed. Comparing to his previous experience in Darfur, Fredrik sees the situation as very similar. However, in Darfur there was more travel on safe roads with the provision of area security by the UN peacekeeping force. In Iraq, stakes are higher. There are more armed groups, the context is more militarized. Challenge ahead: with areas of the country controlled by different groups, who will provide escorts may reflect allegiances and thus impact on the perceived neutrality of humanitarian organizations. Mitigating measures are in place already.
Q&A/Discussion: 1 – The HCT makes decisions on whether to use armed escorts. What are the challenges in building a common and coherent approach from the humanitarian community in Iraq on the use of escorts? Are there Country Specific Guidelines and/or SOPs to address this? CMCoord guidelines for Iraq are under development and the IASC Non-Binding Guidelines on the Use of Armed Escorts for Humanitarian Convoys (2013) apply. This is a recurring challenge in complex emergencies and insecure areas during disaster response – Haiti example. The challenge often is not the lack of policy, rather ensuring a harmonised approach by the humanitarian community that is consistent with the decision on whether to use escorts and the grasping that actions taken in a given context can have a negative impact elsewhere. CMCoord advocacy is vital to implement and promote adherence to the guidelines, including by contractors. When using contractors, profile management is crucial. 2 - What are viable alternatives to the use of armed escorts in Iraq? The issue of whether armed groups know the difference between actors – military, UN mission and humanitarian organisations – and whom they target was mentioned – Afghanistan and Pakistan examples. The distinction between international actors remains a challenge because of perception that all are engaged in similar efforts or missions. 3 – What approaches are used to ensure access in Iraq? There is great reliance on national humanitarian organisations as implementing partners. They access areas where the UN and other international humanitarian organisations are not present for security reasons. 4 - What kind of structures exist in Iraq to facilitate dialogue and information-sharing on CMCoord? There is on-going dialogue with the Government of Iraq and the Iraqi Armed Forces’ CIMIC component. There is also a deconfliction mechanism – a voluntary mechanism for notification of humanitarian movements and locations to coalition forces. CMCoord in Iraq works closely with the Access Unit. 5 – How does the interaction between CMCoord and Access functions work in Iraq? There is a CMCoord officer in the Humanitarian Access Coordination unit. Liaison with Iraqi government authorities is constant on access matters and decision of when and where field missions can safely take place.
6 – Describe the value that the CMCoord function adds to the humanitarian community operations, given existing challenges, in Iraq? CMCoord, as interlocutor between humanitarian and military actors, ensures coordination in such a way to avoid perception that humanitarian operations are part of military activities. CMCoord provides services of interlocutor, information-sharing, deconfliction, contact with military forces and coordination. The colleague in Afghanistan shared the experience of multi-tasking CMCoord, access and security roles, noting the CMCoord Officer’s role in building capacity of staff in regional offices to perform CMCoord, promoting contact between organisations to know who to address and reach out to on particular occasions/matters, promoting education on IHL and protection of civilians, relating operational access negotiation with higher level advocacy via the HCT on humanitarian access, and sharing security information. CMCoord does not have the mandate or role for security activities, rather CMCoord helps sharing security information with counterparts. Decision on the use of escorts in Afghanistan is based on Security Risk Assessments for each region. In the past week alone there were two attacks on armed escorts, which makes them a debilitating factor for access. 7 – In oPT the Access Coordination Unit oversees access and CMCoord work and coordinates with UN agencies who also cover access or CMCoord matters, particularly UNDSS and ICRC. How has the relationship with UNDSS, ICRC, and other agencies developed in Iraq? The respective responsibilities are clear in Iraq. UN agencies come under UNDSS for security. In Afghanistan, the Access Advisory Group is composed of UN agencies, NGOs, DSS and INSO. It has helped improve awareness of the various mandates and roles. Awareness raising and training are essential for understanding and good relationships with counterparts, as is keeping an open mind and adapting approaches and strategies to new and different contexts. A priority in Iraq has been to keep a clear distinction between the work of CMCoord and UNDSS. Examples of Mali and CAR highlighted how important the distinction and awareness of roles and mandates is. Underscored was the importance of trust building, dialoguing, knowing how to share information and what information to share and with whom, and of the soft skills required to negotiate with different counterparts and to act as interlocutor. 8 – Like in Afghanistan and Haiti, is there an NGOs security forum? If so, do you interact with it? INSO is present in Iraq and shares security information with NGOs. CMCoord liaises with INSO for informationsharing as part of OCHA. INSO is also present in Afghanistan. In Gaza coordination with NGOs forums takes place also.