The rules of humanitarian negotiation

GENEVA — When donors contribute to humanitarian organizations, they expect all of the aid purchased with their help to go to the intended populations — those most in need. Yet in the world’s many areas of armed conflict and instability, aid operations managers sometimes have no choice but to divert some of their supplies to the less needy communities through which they pass; or to negotiate with armed groups operating in an area. “The lesson is clear. If you’re caught in an extortionary situation, you invest in the community.” --— Claude Bruderlein, director, CCHN This creates a harsh dilemma: Respect the core principle that all aid goes only to designated recipients and fail to reach the vulnerable people you are there to help; or weaken that principle in order to get most of the aid through. A survey of humanitarian field managers found that, in such situations, many “felt guilty for compromising” the principle, said Claude Bruderlein, director at the Centre of Competence on Humanitarian Negotiation, or CCHN. Worse, because negotiations may take place under the radar, field managers often have little guidance or support from headquarters. Eager to help humanitarian actors better confront such challenges, five organizations — the International Committee of the Red Cross, the U.N. Refugee Agency, the World Food Programme, Médecins sans Frontières, and the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue — got together in 2016 to establish CCHN. The center, with 13 employees at its Geneva, Switzerland, headquarters, carries out research and training and promotes a community of practice where frontline humanitarian negotiators share experience and advice. Its aim is to help field managers become more effective negotiators, and “discuss which compromises are acceptable,” Bruderlein said. The first thing they did was to document what was going on in the field, interviewing more than 150 negotiators to identify patterns and write up case studies. They devised training workshops, and last December issued a 364-page field manual, available to download for free. Access to vulnerable populations is most commonly at the center of negotiations, though they sometimes involve other humanitarian imperatives, such as the evacuation or return of civilians. They happen in difficult and dangerous environments such as Syria and South Sudan, where humanitarians struggle to reach those in need. Practitioners spoke about a “huge” diversion of aid in these places. Lessons from the field But there are strategies that can help. “The lesson is clear,” Bruderlein said. “If you’re caught in an extortionary situation, you invest in the community.” This typically means working with local stakeholders on a more holistic approach that can include things such as education and health care for the host community as well as refugees and migrants, and employment for demobilized fighters. This gives local communities a stake in an aid operation and can get local leaders to stop armed groups from extorting organizations. Philippe Sacher, a senior official with the U.N. Refugee Agency, recalled using a similar approach in Yemen about a decade ago, when the government unexpectedly rejected a plan to set up health facilities for internally displaced people. Working with local leaders, Sacher and his colleagues discovered the community was tired of hosting refugees, who were increasingly perceived as a burden. “So we restarted negotiations with a totally different approach:” expanding health facilities and schools not only for IDPs but the host community too. With the support of local leaders, the government approved the new proposal. In other situations, armed groups control access to populations. Humanitarian protocols strictly prohibit the diversion of aid to armed fighters, but operators still need to gain their trust in order to get supplies through. During Colombia's long civil war, Oscar Sánchez Piñeiro, another UNHCR official, was involved in efforts to bring aid to an indigenous population living in a jungle enclave reachable only by canoe, who were running out of food. The nearest town from where canoes could be launched was controlled by Colombia's main rebel organization, the FARC, which was suspicious of humanitarian groups. “We spent months talking with the [rebel-controlled] town council,” Sánchez Piñeiro recalled. Gradually, they negotiated entry for health workers, and then a government ombudsman to document the needs of people in the area. In the end, the rebels allowed them access to the hungry indigenous group. “We didn’t make any promises we couldn’t keep," Sánchez Piñeiro said. "Little by little, we tried to meet their needs and we gradually gained their trust," allowing them to provide for local communities. “It's not about seducing or becoming friends. It’s about getting access." --— French NGO official In such situations, experts in the new field of humanitarian negotiations say it is important to prepare by researching not only the macro context you want to enter — the politics, ethnic tensions, and economic issues — but the micro context as well: the background, opinions, and interests of the people you will be negotiating with. “I don’t like football [soccer],” said a French NGO official who asked not to be named due to the sensitive nature of her work. “But I’ve learned a lot about it. I come from a place with a famous football team and in many situations, this has helped me. It allows me to open discussions on maybe a more relaxed note.” “It's not about seducing or becoming friends,” she added. “It’s about getting access." The need for better negotiation skills has grown in recent years, experts say. In Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, and other conflict areas, respect for humanitarian law and the protection of aid operations has weakened. Alain Lempereur, a professor at Brandeis University and Harvard Law School, said that in past decades, “there were a lot of hopes that since we had humanitarian laws and conventions, there was nothing to negotiate. There was a kind of denial about the need for negotiation.” That is now changing. MSF, one of CCHN’s sponsor organizations, has taken a new interest in negotiation with governments. Although the international NGO is accustomed to frontline negotiations with armed groups, Lempereur, who trains MSF field managers in the practice, said it has now begun negotiating framework agreements with the governments of countries in which it operates, similar to the agreements ICRC has negotiated for many years. These recognize a group’s symbols, exempt it from import restrictions on relief supplies, facilitate entry formalities for its foreign personnel, and in general, offer it a degree of protection. The move was sparked in part by a 2015 attack on one of its hospitals in Afghanistan by a United States bomber. The U.S. later said it was a mistake and apologized. Lempereur believes such an agreement could have helped to prevent it. Training for humanitarians To date, more than 700 humanitarian field managers have taken part in CCHN workshops around the world. Bruderlein said there is huge demand for the events, which last up to a week and are a rare occasion for aid workers to exchange thoughts and experiences with their peers. The group has also established "communities of practice" — discussion forums where humanitarian managers can discuss issues in their work as they come up. "We are saying to humanitarian workers, 'You are not alone,'" said Marcia Vargas Padilla, a former ICRC official who is now a consultant and trainer for CCHN. "The peer-to-peer support that CCHN is creating is really helping people and people are using it." CCHN also organizes advisory support missions to help humanitarian teams facing “specific challenges and dilemmas of negotiating access and protection in an operational context.” One recent request involved military escorts for humanitarian operations in Nigeria. Although the practice is frowned upon, since it can make an organization appear aligned with the government, sometimes insecurity is so great it may be the only solution. But how do you get out of it when the security situation improves? asked Bruderlein. “An organization came to us and said: ‘We don’t know where to begin thinking about it.’ We offered a critical space to think about it and to look at experiences from other crises.” Usually, the only way to end the practice is “to withdraw and come back later,” he said. One concept that CCHN promotes is the idea of “red lines” — setting boundaries that you should never cross in your negotiations, determined by an organization’s leadership. Red lines for most humanitarian organizations include staff security; neutrality, including actions that would result in an organization being perceived as taking sides on a matter at the core of a conflict; payment for the release of hostages; and the provision of aid to armed groups, although providing humanitarian assistance to the families of fighters is seen by some as a grey area. About 300 practitioners are expected to attend CCHN’s fourth annual meeting in Geneva in December. If there is one overarching idea the group promotes, it is that humanitarian action is most effective when it is relational, rather than transactional. In other words, strive to build relationships with the communities you serve or come into contact with — don’t just bring in aid, drop it off, and leave.