The following slides were presented by George Devendorf, InterAction, at the 18-19 April 1996 workshop on Humanitarian and Peace Operations: The NGO/Interagency Interface. This workshop, which was held at the National Defense University (NDU), was sponsored by NDU's Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS) Center for Advanced Concepts, Technologies, and Information Strategies (ACTIS). InterAction is a coalition of more than 150 private voluntary organizations (PVOs) engaged in humanitarian efforts. Commentary has been added by the authors of the workshop report.
Slide 1. Title Slide
Slide 2. Defining the Players
Complex humanitarian emergencies involve multiple actors at many levels. In most cases, the host government authority takes the lead in guiding donor, NGO, IO, and UN representatives and activities.
Slide 3. Defining the Players, Slide II
Like the civilian side, military involvement in humanitarian operations is multidimensional. Depending on the situation, the military presence could be multinational, multiservice, regional, or involve multiple parties to a conflict. As the number of actors increases, the situation is further complicated by trying to communicate across different units, interpreting different military insignia, etc.
Slide 4. Perceptions of Authority
Because of the diffuse nature of the NGO community, the military often is confused when trying to figure out who is in charge, what organizational structure is present in-country, or how the civilian chain-of-command--if one exists--functions.
Slide 5. Perceptions of Transparency
Although the military knows the mission and understands the rules of engagement (ROEs) in peacekeeping operations, its interagency partners also need to be informed about the mission, any change in mission, and the ROEs. For example, U.S. Pacific Command uses a full-time humanitarian affairs advisor assigned to the staff to facilitate the CINC's understanding of the civilian side and to facilitate communication between the military and its interagency partners. In the area of peacekeeping operations, both the military and the civilian side question who is supposed to be supporting whom.
Slide 6. Perceptions of Communication
The military, civilian agencies, and the NGOs all recognize the importance of communication among organizations, but recognize that problems abound. The lack of compatible communications hardware hinders effective communication and even the various branches of the military experience problems communicating with each other. The need for secure communications further complicates the situation. While not everyone needs to be fully wired into a communications network, there needs to be one point of contact that has access to all of the communications nets, such as a liaison officer in UN headquarters or a civilian assigned to a military office. Because frequency allocation is a critical problem, it needs to be resolved early in a crisis by working with the host government, who controls the allocation of frequencies. All parties need to ensure that NGOs have access to communications frequencies and that the division of these allocations is consistently enforced. One potential solution to these communications-related issues is to establish a centralized Information Management Center.
Slide 7. Perceptions of Communication, Part II
Part of effective communications between the military and the NGO community is ensuring that each understands what the other is saying. One approach is to collocate civil affairs personnel with the Civil Military Operations Centers (CMOCs) and OFDA personnel with various military commands. Also as part of an effort to "speak the same language," it would be very useful to develop standardized formats for the reports generated by the military, UN, NGOs, etc., in the field so everyone involved in a crisis can correctly interpret the information coming in from the field. A tension exists, however, as to how information is used. The military views NGOs as a wealth of information, but the NGOs are wary of being the conduit of such information lest it be used as intelligence information.
Slide 8. Communicating In-Country
The UN and the NGO community recognize the importance of civil-military coordination structures in complex humanitarian disasters. In order to be most effective, these structures must be accessible to the NGO community, support NGO requests for assistance, and work at the local level. In order to achieve this last goal, a situation may require multiple CMOCs or CIMICs. If the structures are located outside the wire--that is, close to where the NGOs operate and not within the military's security perimeter--this can create communication problems with the associated military headquarters. By working at the local level, however, these structures can be very effective in meeting operational needs, such as food distribution and perimeter security.
Slide 9. Communicating In-Country, Part II
Coordination within the NGO community is as complex as coordination across NGOs and government agencies. Typically, the UN leads in-country humanitarian coordination, using structures such as the HOC (Humanitarian Operations Center) and the OSOCC (On-Site Operation Coordination Center), as well as working through host government ministries and sectoral working groups that address specific problem areas. In some situations, parallel structures of coordination are established--some are UN, some are military--which complicates coordination.
Slide 10. Understanding Each Other
Differing missions and needs lead to vastly different perceptions of priorities in-country among all the actors. It is important that all the actors understand each other's priorities and needs in order to effectively deal with one another. For example, force protection is a top priority for the military. The humanitarian community does not always understand this priority and hence, may believe that military logistics during the deployment phase should be tailored toward delivering needed supplies to the field and not toward establishing force protection. In all the cases listed in Slides 10 and 11, both the military and civilians need to make clear what is expected of the other and what each is prepared to do and what they will not do.
Slide 11. Understanding Each Other, Continued
Like Slide 10, Slide 11 continues to address problems in understanding other organizations' perceptions and priorities. For example, if the military is deciding who should receive certain assets, how does it tell the "good apples from the bad?" In order to prioritize NGO requests and requirements, the military needs to contact the responsible UN agency for its assessments, talk with reliable NGOs, and coordinate with the DART team. This way, it can give support to capable, enduring NGOs and avoid mistakes by supporting "weekend" NGOs--small, fly-by-night operations with limited resources, goals, and effectiveness. Finally, both NGOs and government agencies must recognize that certain organizations--be they NGOs, the military, UN agencies, etc.--may bring unique capabilities to a complex emergency and should perform those functions without undue interference by others operating in the theater.
Slide 12. Transitioning Between A Complex Humanitarian Emergency and Ongoing Humanitarian Operations
Many issues affect the success of an effective transition during which the military exits a situation and turns over responsibility for certain tasks to the civilian sector. The transition issues listed above need to be considered in the planning stages of an operation before the military ever becomes involved. The types and degree of humanitarian involvement need to be assessed early on and potential disruptions to the local economy considered and minimized. If possible, the humanitarian effort needs to engage in local capacity building, hire and buy locally, and leave indigenous capabilities behind. At times, training of forces (e.g., UN) that will replace the current (U.S.) forces needs to occur.
Slide 13. Emerging Trends in Civilian-Military Cooperation
Positive trends to facilitate better communications, planning, and assessments between NGOs and government agencies are emerging. For example, joint training is occurring more frequently. Moreover, the U.S. Government increasingly recognizes the need to get civilian agencies involved early in planning and assessing situations, including efforts to develop measurable objectives and MCDA (Military Civil Defense Assets) lists.