Discussion paper on ensuring more effective interaction and coordination between field protection clusters and peacekeeping and other missions
Introduction
At the Global Protection Cluster (GPC) retreat in December 2010, field-based protection clusters identified the need for guidance to address the challenges and dilemmas that they face in interacting with peacekeeping and other types of missions.[1] Similarly, the need to clarify the modes of coordination between clusters and UN peacekeeping missions was a key finding of the Cluster II Evaluation.[2] As a result, the development of guidance was included within the GPC workplan for 2011, with OCHA designated as the lead agency.[3]
This paper provides the rationale and a proposal for moving forward with the development of the requested guidance by the GPC. Although the paper envisages the development of “guidance”, as this is what has been specifically requested by the field, the precise form(s) that that guidance will take will be determined by further consultations with the field that will be based on the questionnaire included at the end of this paper. Moreover, the present paper should not be read as excluding the possibility of alternative measures such as amending existing guidance/protocols or processes and/or training modules to the extent to which suggestions to this end emerge during the consultations.
Background and rationale
In recent years, humanitarian organizations and UN peacekeeping and other missions have expanded their respective roles in seeking to provide protection to civilians in armed conflict. The humanitarian community has increasingly recognized that protection is no longer an activity confined to mandated agencies such as the ICRC, OHCHR, UNHCR and UNICEF. It is also now undertaken by a range of humanitarian organizations, either mainstreamed into their existing programmes or implemented as stand-alone projects.
Eight UN peacekeeping missions today have a specific “protection of civilians” mandate – the operational concept for which is organized around a three-tiered approach of protection through political processes; providing protection from physical violence; and establishing a protective environment.[4] Although they do not have protection of civilians mandates, UN political missions also undertake protection-related activities relating to human rights and the rule of law. In addition, regional peacekeeping missions, such as the African Union peace support mission Somalia, AMISOM, can have important implications for the protection of civilians.
Despite the growing importance of protection for all such actors, the nature of their interaction and coordination, particularly between UN peacekeeping missions and humanitarian organizations, has been inconsistent and sometimes problematic. For example, some staff in military components of UN peacekeeping missions have tended to view protection as primarily concerned with protecting civilians (including humanitarian actors) from physical violence. Some peacekeeping missions have not always recognized the need to coordinate their efforts with other protection actors and yet there are areas where there activities overlap (e.g., child protection, addressing sexual violence).
In addition, humanitarian organizations are concerned with distinguishing themselves and their operations from those of peacekeeping and other missions, in order to safeguard their neutrality and independence, and the perception thereof. However, in some contexts humanitarian organizations depend on peacekeeping missions for escorts and logistical support to facilitate their movement and aid distributions. Moreover, such missions can provide physical protection to the same populations that humanitarians are assisting.
Thus a number of challenges and dilemmas arise from this interaction. Yet more effective interaction and better coordination between protection clusters and peacekeeping and other missions is essential for improving and strengthening their respective – and the overall – protection response. Indeed, an effective response to the majority of protection risks in conflict (armed attacks, displacement, sexual violence, child recruitment, etc.) requires coordinated action to maximize the complementarity and comparative advantage of all relevant protection actors in a given situation, whether they are peacekeepers or humanitarian actors – while, of course, maintaining a clear division of roles and responsibilities (not least for humanitarian organizations to maintain their independence, neutrality and impartiality).
Although a range of guidance on protection has been developed for use by humanitarian organizations,[5] this does not address sufficiently the question of how such organizations should interact and coordinate with peacekeeping and other missions. DPKO’s framework for the development of comprehensive protection of civilians strategies[6] addresses coordination with humanitarian organizations to some extent, but is not comprehensive and does not provide guidance to humanitarian actors. Similarly, existing civil-military coordination guidelines for complex emergencies[7] do not address activities related to protection.
With the above considerations in mind, OCHA will lead a GPC-team, comprising InterAction, OHCHR, UNFPA (for the GBV AOR), UNHABITAT (for the HLP AOR), UNHCR, UNMAS (for the Mine Action AOR), and World Vision to develop, through extensive consultation with protection clusters in the field, the GPC and other relevant stakeholders, guidance on the interaction between protection clusters and peacekeeping and other missions. As indicated, the precise form(s) of the guidance and/or the amendment of existing guidance/protocols or processes and/or training modules will be determined on the basis of consultations with the field.
Target audience and scope
The expected users of the guidance – in whatever form – will be members of protection clusters in the field. It will cover situations involving interaction between field protection clusters (and their sub-clusters/AORs) and peacekeeping and other missions. This includes interaction with the military, police and civilian components of UN peacekeeping missions (e.g. MONUSCO, UNMISS, etc.), UN political missions (e.g. UNAMI, UNAMA etc.), and regional peacekeeping missions (e.g. AMISOM). The term ‘peacekeeping and other missions’ is used for the sake of convenience and refers to these different types of operations. However, it should be kept in mind that the nature of the interaction between protection clusters and peacekeeping missions is context specific and that different contexts will present different challenges and dilemmas depending on the type of mission and may require different approaches.
Depending on the outcome of the field consultations, consideration might be given to also including so-called “stabilization missions” such as ISAF in Afghanistan. Missions of this type are very different in nature from the other missions to be covered in the guidance, not least in that they constitute a party to the conflict. Thus more specific advice and direction may be required for interaction with such missions.
A possible outline for the guidance will be developed based on preliminary consultations with protection clusters in the field (through the attached questionnaire) and other relevant stakeholders to identify the issues that should be considered. Consultations will also be undertaken with relevant focal points in DPKO, DPA as well as with some peacekeeping and other missions to obtain their perspective. Such consultations are vital for ensuring that the outcome of the process reflects the realities in the field and is practically relevant.
The guidance will focus on the challenges that humanitarian actors face in engaging peacekeeping and other missions and ways in which these can be overcome in order to ensure a more effective and coordinated response. While generic guidance will be presented, it is also acknowledged that this will need to be implemented in context-specific manner.
Possible issues for consideration are:
· Different conceptual models of protection adopted by peacekeeping and other missions and humanitarian actors, and the possibility of building a common understanding.
· Challenges and dilemmas of interaction and coordination
· Guiding principles for interaction with missions
· Overview of appropriate and effective coordination structures
· Role of the GPC
· Conducting joint protection risk assessments
· Clarifying coordination and ways of working together
o development and implementation of (parallel) protection strategies
o contingency planning and response plans
o undertaking protection assessments, monitoring and analysis
o modalities of information sharing
o advocacy and communication
o training and scenario planning
Methodology
The following methodology is proposed for developing the guidance:
1. Establishment of a team of interested GPC members facilitated by OCHA.
2. GPC team to consult members of field protection clusters, on the basis of the attached questionnaire, as well as other relevant stakeholders, to identify key issues to be addressed.
3. GPC team to produce a proposal for addressing the identified issues which may include an outline of future guidance, as well as other recommended measures. The proposal will be circulated to the field for consultation. Based on this consultation, the proposal will be further refined and may include a zero draft of guidance and/or other recommended measures.
4. The GPC team will organize a workshop, in full consultation with the broader GPC membership, representatives from field protection clusters, and involving other relevant actors (e.g., DPKO, DPA), to discuss the refined proposal, including a possible zero draft of guidance.
5. The GPC team will produce a consolidated first draft of the guidance and/or other recommended measures for circulation to, and feedback from the GPC, field-based protection clusters and, in turn, other relevant coordination fora and stakeholders including inter alia:
§ DPKO, DPA and UN peacekeeping and political missions
§ The IASC Task Force on Humanitarian Space and Civil-Military Relations
§ Integrated Mission Planning Process Working Group
6. The final version of the guidance and/or other recommended actions, will be submitted for endorsement to the GPC. A dissemination and outreach strategy will be developed to ensure the effective implementation of the adopted measures in the field and it is envisaged that orientation will be integrated into relevant training undertaken by protection clusters, DPKO, DPA and other relevant entities and partners.
Indicative Timetable
Activity / TimeframeDiscussion and agreement of this paper / December 2011
Consultation with field protection clusters based on this paper and questionnaire to identify key issues / February 2012
Proposal developed and circulated for consultation, including to the field. / March 2012
Development of refined proposal, including a possible zero draft of guidance and/or other recommended measures. / April 2012
Workshop with key stakeholders to discuss refined proposal, including a possible zero draft of guidance and/or other recommended measures. / May 2012
Circulation of possible second draft of guidance and/or other recommended measures to GPC, field-based Protection Clusters and relevant entities. / June 2012
Final draft of possible guidance and/or other recommended measures submitted to GPC for endorsement. / July 2012
Development of dissemination and implementation strategy. / July 2012 – onwards
For more information, please contact:
Simon Bagshaw / Rebecca SkovbyeProtection and Displacement Section
Policy Development and Studies Branch
OCHA Geneva / GPC Support Cell
UNHCR Geneva
+ 41 22 917 2296 /
+41 22 739 8607
Questionnaire on the interaction between protection clusters
and peacekeeping and other missions
The purpose of this questionnaire is to elicit the views of protection clusters in the field on the need, scope and possible content of guidance on the interaction between protection clusters and peacekeeping and political missions, as outlined in the attached paper.
1. What type of assistance do you require from the GPC in order to promote effective interaction and better coordination between protection clusters and peacekeeping and other missions? Would guidance be useful in your context? Are there alternative or additional measures to guidance that could meet your needs?
2. In the case of guidance, from your experience, what should be the key elements of any guidance on the interaction between the Protection Cluster and peacekeeping and other missions on protection? Are the topics listed in the concept note relevant or not? Are there issues which are not mentioned that should be?
3. Can you explain and give examples of the ways in which the protection cluster and its sub-clusters interact and coordinate with the mission in your country? Is there variation with the different components of the mission (military, police, civilian) or coordination at the national, provincial and district levels?
4. In addition to the Protection Cluster, are there other coordination structures in which humanitarian organizations engage with the mission on protection? If so, what are they and how do they differ from the Protection Cluster? Are there any differences between protection Cluster members (for example UN, NGO) in (a) their relationship with the mission; and (b) their perception of what level of engagement between humanitarian actors and peacekeeping missions is appropriate or desirable?
5. What role is played by the Humanitarian Coordinator and senior mission leaders in engaging and bridging the roles of the Protection Cluster and the mission on protection issues?
6. Are there specific challenges and opportunities that you have encountered in coordinating with the mission on protection?
- Have particular approaches to coordination with the mission been developed by the Protection Cluster and its sub-clusters on the following activities? What were some of the opportunities and challenges?
- specific protection activities (e.g. human rights protection, child protection, addressing sexual and gender-based violence)
- protection assessments and protection monitoring coordinated with the mission
- information sharing on incidents and situations requiring a protection response (including early warning)
- advocacy on protection issues
- consultation by, and input to, the mission’s development of its comprehensive protection of civilians strategies
8. Does the Protection Cluster and its sub-clusters, the Humanitarian Coordinator and the Humanitarian Country Team have any existing operational guidance or agreements on how to interact and/or coordinate with the mission? Could you kindly share any guidance or agreements available?
Questionnaire sur l'interaction entre les Clusters protection
et les opérations de maintien de la paix et autres missions
Le but de ce questionnaire est d’obtenir les points de vues des Clusters protection sur le terrain concernant les besoins, l’étendue et le contenu qui pourrait être envisagé dans une note d’orientation sur l'interaction entre les clusters protection d’un coté et les opérations de maintien de la paix et missions politiques de l’autre, comme énoncé dans la note conceptuelle.
1. De quel type de soutien auriez-vous besoin provenant du GPC – Global Protection Cluster – pour promouvoir une interaction efficace et une meilleure coordination entre les clusters protection et les opérations de maintien de la paix et autres missions ayant un mandat de protection? Obtenir une note d’orientation serait-il perçu comme important et utile dans votre contexte? Y a-t-il des mesures alternatives ou additionnelles à un document d’orientation qui pourraient satisfaire vos besoinsd’une meilleure manière?