Recommendations of the IASC WG Staff Security Task Force to the IASC WG and Menu of Options

Adopted by the IASC WG at its meeting of 10-11 May 2001  

General recommendations

1. Strengthening UN/non-UN security collaboration

That all humanitarian actors¹ adopt a policy of strengthening collaboration on staff security with operational partners² both at HQ and at the field level, in the context of reinforcing their commitment to staff security.

2. Advocating for security

That all humanitarian actors engage in advocacy for greater awareness of the need for increased resources in support of field staff security, including resources for UN/non-UN security collaboration.

3. Appointing agency security focal points

That humanitarian actors that do not have an agency staff security focal point at the HQ, appoint one, and include inter-agency collaboration on staff security in his/her Terms of Reference.

4. Strengthening security management, including collaboration That all humanitarian actors ensure that security management, including UN/non-UN collaboration, is incorporated: (1) As part of the job description and the performance evaluation of their directors and managers, especially at the field level; (2) As an indicator of effectiveness and efficiency in the evaluation of humanitarian operations.

Field-related recommendations

5. Enhancing the role of the DO in UN/non-UN security collaboration

That the functions of the DO reflect the need for a profile which includes:

1. Skills in creating an environment conducive to inter-agency collaboration, including staff security;
2. Security training;
3. Field experience in security management.

6. Enhancing UN/non-UN collaboration in the UN Security Management Team

1. That IGOs, NGOs, and other non-UN humanitarian actors participate in the UN Security Management Team (SMT) on an ex officio³, representative basis (cf. recommendation 7);
2. That the DO should coordinate security decisions with non-UN humanitarian actors.

7. Selecting NGO field security focal point(s)

That non-UN humanitarian actors (IGOs, NGOs, and other non-UN humanitarian actors) in specific humanitarian operations select among themselves one or a limited number of field security focal points (cf. recommendation 6).

8. Convening UN/non-UN fora for field security collaboration

That fora for practical UN/non-UN security collaboration among all humanitarian actors at area, country and sub-office level be convened, at regular intervals, in order to address practical security issues of common concern, for example by:

1. Identifying, from a menu of options on security collaboration, those fitting into the specific field situation (see appendix);
2. Implementing and updating such practical collaboration in its various forms on a regular basis.

The fora may include the following regular participants: DO / FSO / Area Security Coordinator or other DO designee; members of the SMT as appropriate; NGO field security focal point(s); representatives of IGOs; representatives of the Red Cross Movement. The chairperson may be chosen on a rotating basis.

9. Including UN/non-UN staff security concerns in the CAPs

That the CAPs include a project to cover the additional resources potentially required by enhanced UN/non-UN collaboration on staff security such as telecommunication (cf. rec. 12) and security training (cf. rec.13).

10. Meeting common, security-related needs

That humanitarian actors committed to UN/non-UN security collaboration in each specific humanitarian operation participate in meeting the uncovered, security-related needs of the humanitarian community⁴, including costs, according to the scope of their respective involvement.

11. Sharing resources

That humanitarian actors in humanitarian field operations develop a local inventory for the sharing of their specialized, security-related human and material resources.

12. Facilitating inter-agency telecommunication

That telecommunication among humanitarian actors at field level be facilitated by:

1. The DO advocating with the relevant authorities for the use of telecommunication equipment within the framework of existing international agreements;
2. The relevant UN body negotiating with the authorities a common frequency for humanitarian actors committed to security collaboration operating in the same area;
3. Humanitarian actors committed to security collaboration using standard communication procedures and, to the extent possible, providing staff with compatible communication systems.

13. Collaborating and consulting in security training

That all humanitarian actors at HQ and at field level:

1. Carry out security training in collaboration and/or consultation with other agencies to the extent possible;
2. Seek to increase their own capacity for security training at all levels.

14. Sharing information

That security-related information be shared among humanitarian actors while respecting the humanitarian character of the participants as well as the confidentiality required when dealing with sensitive information.

15. Identifying minimum security standards

That local UN and non-UN humanitarian actors jointly identify and agree how to apply minimum security standards adapted to local circumstances. In so doing, humanitarian actors will take into consideration already existing standards, for example the UN M.O.S.S. (minimum operational security standards) that are binding for the members of the UN system.

16. Seeking adherence to common humanitarian ground-rules

That the security collaboration of humanitarian actors in specific field operations, to the extent possible, rest on respect for common, locally developed ground-rules for humanitarian action.

Recommendations on follow-up

17. Seeking legal opinion

That the individual IASC-WG members, while recognizing the non-binding character of the recommendations from the IASC-WG Staff Security Task Force, seek legal opinion on the application of the recommendations.

18. Disseminating and evaluating

That the members of the IASC-WG:

1. Disseminate the IASC-WG recommendations on UN/non-UN staff security collaboration within their respective agencies, especially at the field level;
2. Ensure that the utility of the recommendations is evaluated within their respective agencies.

19. Learning lessons

That the IASC-WG:

1. Disseminate the IASC-WG recommendations on UN/non-UN staff security collaboration;
2. Review the implementation of the present recommendations;
3. Prepare and disseminate regular Lessons Learnt reports on UN/non-UN security collaboration, based on reports from its member agencies.

Notes

1. In this report, humanitarian actor indicates UN and non-UN humanitarian agencies and organizations that are operational at the field level. Non-UN humanitarian actors in this report is shorthand for humanitarian NGOs, inter-governmental organizations (like the IOM), and other non-UN humanitarian actors.

2. Operational partner in this report reflects a broad understanding of partnership, including all humanitarian actors working together in the same field operation, as opposed to the narrower, contractual relationship implied in the term "implementing partner". This understanding of the term operational partner is used for example in the UNHCR-NGO Framework Agreement for Operational Partnership (cf. version of November 2000).

3. Ex officio here refers to the fact that representatives of non-UN humanitarian actors are not bound by, nor participate formally in, SMT decisions on UN security policy.

4. Humanitarian community in this report refers to the totality of humanitarian actors in a given place, addressing the same humanitarian crisis, whether or not they form operational partnerships or collaborate in other ways.

Appendix

The participants in the two consultations organised by the IASC-WG Staff Security Task Force in Geneva and Washington DC recommended that humanitarian actors in specific field contexts adopt a pragmatic and flexible approach to UN/non-UN security collaboration.

Thus, humanitarian actors in specific field contexts might organise their collaborative efforts in field security by:

Identifying, from a "menu of options" on security collaboration, those fitting into the specific field situation;
1. Choosing in which options for security collaboration, and at which degree, they would commit themselves to participate, according to the agency's mandate/mission and the scope of its operational involvement;
2. Implementing, and updating on a regular basis, such practical collaboration in its various forms.

The participants identified the following list of areas of common security concern ("options"), which may serve as a "menu of options" for UN/non-UN security collaboration in the field:

1. Convening UN/non-UN fora for field security collaboration
2. Including UN/non-UN staff security concerns in the CAP
3. Meeting common security-related needs
4. Sharing resources
5. Collaborating in UN/non-UN security planning
6. Facilitating inter-agency telecommunication
7. Sharing information
8. Collaborating and consulting in security training
9. Identifying minimum security standards
10. Seeking adherence to common humanitarian ground-rules

A more detailed version of the proposed menu of options, containing ideas for checklists for each option based on input from the Geneva and Washington DC consultations, is attached to the Task Force Consultant's Final Report. These checklists may serve as a starting point for humanitarian actors in their implementation of the present recommendations in specific field situations.