Interaction Statement On Integration - FINAL 15 Dec 2011

The document discusses the contradictions between UN integration policy and humanitarian principles of neutrality and impartiality. It argues that integration, which aims to align UN entities for political ends, undermines the independence of humanitarian action. While better coordination is supported, the document calls for a humanitarian exception to prevent subordination of humanitarian work to political objectives. A coordinated, but independent, humanitarian system is needed with its own logistical capacity and direct reporting line to preserve neutrality and access.

Uploaded by

InterAction

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

197 views

Interaction Statement On Integration - FINAL 15 Dec 2011

Uploaded by

InterAction

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 2

Policy Statement

December 2011

A Humanitarian Exception to the Integration Rule

For more information, please contact: Jenny McAvoy Director of Protection InterAction [email protected] Joel Charny Vice-President, Humanitarian Policy and Practice InterAction [email protected]

Inability to reach and impartially assist all affected populations; loss of operational autonomy; repeated and targeted attacks on humanitarian workers these are the worst scenarios faced by humanitarian organizations. They have become far too common, prompting operational dilemmas about how to achieve humanitarian outcomes. The study UN Integration and Humanitarian Space, commissioned by the UN Integration Steering Group and conducted by the Humanitarian Policy Group and the Stimson Center, captures many of the critical issues between humanitarian actors and UN political and peacekeeping missions in situations of armed conflict. However, InterAction is concerned that the study does not resolve contradictions inherent in the UNs integration policy. Integration, at its heart, is about aligning United Nations entities to achieve political ends, whereas humanitarian action should never be either political or partisan. Any discussion of integration and humanitarian action must start by examining the practical implications of this fundamental contradiction. The reports recommendations focus on how UN integration design and management can better accommodate humanitarian concerns. For example, more comprehensive and inclusive context-specific assessments of risk to humanitarian operations would create new opportunities to negotiate for marginally less harmful integration arrangements. This may yield better outcomes in the long run than current practice. It is still implicitly assumed that UN humanitarian activities must be subsumed under a broader political role that dominates the UNs resources and its decision-making structures. Humanitarian actors will still be forced to engage in time-consuming negotiations to maintain a modicum of independence from a UN political or peacekeeping mandate. Even if the decision-making processes and structures within UN integrated missions become more responsive to humanitarian concerns, the glacial pace of UN policy implementation inevitably means that humanitarian operations will continue to experience the crippling effects of perceived alignment with political objectives for years to come.

www.InterAction.org 1400 16th Street, NW Suite 210 Washington, DC 20036 202.667.8227

Humanitarian actors know well the many variables including their own conduct impacting their security and access to affected populations. Mounting concern over perceived alliance with political and military objectives is not confined to UN integrated missions. Humanitarians increasingly recognize that their effectiveness depends on more rigorous adherence to principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence.

Simultaneously, InterAction understands the importance of strengthened coherence within the UN system and appreciates the efficiency and effectiveness of shared resources and of aligned objectives and activities. However, humanitarian actors can no longer afford to ignore the contradictions inherent in the UNs policy on integration. A humanitarian exception to the integration rule is required.

Coordination, not subordination

InterAction calls on the Emergency Relief Coordinator (ERC) and UN humanitarian agencies to adopt policies and measures to assert the independence of humanitarian action and prevent its subordination to other objectives and decision-making structures: No new structurally integrated missions should be established in any situation of armed conflict, political violence or any context where a UN political or peacekeeping mission implements a partisan mandate. The Humanitarian Coordinators (HC) reporting line to the ERC or her designate must be preserved and respected. In keeping with the Secretary-Generals expectation that integration will benefit humanitarian operations, all new integration arrangements whether structural or other forms should include explicit humanitarian justification, and not simply assume an absence of security risks or other harmful effects to humanitarian operations and affected populations. Consistent with the studys recommendations, context-specific analysis of perceptions and security risks must inform the posture of humanitarian actors. In doing so, the reality that perceptions and reputations are increasingly both global and local must be recognized. Decisive corrective action must be taken in the near term where integration arrangements have exacerbated the challenges of maintaining neutrality, impartiality and independence, and perceptions thereof. In particular, the ERC, HCs, UN agency Country Directors, and Humanitarian Country Teams in Afghanistan, Darfur, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Somalia should change structures and practices that result in perceptions that humanitarian actors are aligned with political objectives, compromise operational autonomy and inhibit full access to all affected populations. HCs should implement strategy for the required changes with clear milestones with the collaboration of UN and non-UN humanitarian actors. The logistical infrastructure required for humanitarian actors to operate independently should be built up to reduce dependence on peacekeeping assets and minimize association with UNs political objectives. This should include capacity to maintain strictly humanitarian premises, establish forward areas of operation, maintain airlift capacity, and develop appropriate approaches to security management to reduce reliance on armed escorts. The logistical requirements of an independent and impartial humanitarian system should inform dialogue with donors.

InterAction also recognizes that coordination among different actors is good practice and urges the ERC, UN agencies and all humanitarian actors to enhance the quality of coordination between the humanitarian community and UN peacekeeping and political missions: Humanitarian actors and UN political and peacekeeping missions should regularly liaise and share information through context-specific mechanisms for example, on relevant thematic topics. Particular effort should be devoted to contexts where peacekeeping missions are implementing protection of civilians mandates to ensure that relevant mission tasks are well-informed by analysis of where and how civilian populations are at greatest risk, as well as how the missions policies and activities impact the civilian population. Humanitarian Coordinators, supported by OCHA, should make it their priority to ensure that such contact is on-going, and to enlist the participation of NGOs and other humanitarian actors in any resulting mechanisms. OCHA in particular must be fully resourced with staff deployed in a timely manner to facilitate this coordination.