Protecting Rights through Humanitarian Action
About this Section
Growing the Sheltering Tree
Training and Toolkits
Resources

PROCEEDINGS

Workshop on the Development of
Human Rights Training for Humanitarian Actors

Geneva, Switzerland
29-30 November 2001

CONTENTS

1. Summary
2. Workshop Discussion Highlights
3. Plan of Action

From 29-30 November 2001, a workshop to promote the active integration of human rights into humanitarian action through partnership among non-governmental, inter-governmental, and UN organisations in the development of a core human rights training module for humanitarian actors was held in Geneva.

The workshop, co-hosted by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the International Council of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA), brought together individuals from various organisations who have had experience with human rights training and the rights-based approach in programming. OHCHR sponsored the workshop while ICVA provided logistical support. The workshop was one in of a series of initiatives of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Reference Group on Human Rights and Humanitarian Action. The agenda of the workshop and participants' list are appended.

There currently exists no general or basic human rights training module that is based upon a consensus of opinion within the humanitarian and human rights communities. While some organisations have had the opportunity to develop training materials on human rights, many have not, due to a lack of funding, limited staff resources, and/or the necessary knowledge base. A further professionalisation of the approach to human rights within the humanitarian community is required.

The workshop, which brought together practitioners in human rights training, presented an opportunity for learning how organisations have used human rights concepts in their work and/or have used protection as the basis for programming. The workshop also provided a venue for participants to express their views regarding the target audience for training on human rights and to share their ideas about who is best placed to become trainers on human rights issues for the humanitarian community.

A background discussion paper and a survey of materials related to human rights and humanitarian action were presented to participants to provide a starting point for discussions. (Both are available on the ICVA website: www.icva.ch.)

The discussion paper asserted that a review of projects, programmes, and materials (and interviews with representatives of humanitarian organisations) revealed that the whole range of human rights seems now to be of concern to the humanitarian community. For many it would appear that the question is no longer if humanitarians should engage in the promotion and protection of rights, but how. The workshop was seen as a unique opportunity to further this engagement through the development of a specific tool - a core training module on human rights for humanitarian actors.

There was recognition of the need for OHCHR and other human rights organisations to further develop how best to work with the humanitarian community in understanding human rights concepts and developing programmes that respond to human rights needs and problems. Participants affirmed that an increased OHCHR involvement in the humanitarian field would be welcomed.

Zdzislaw Kedzia, Chief of the OHCHR Policy Planning and Methodology Team, was invited to speak with participants. He recognised that while humanitarian action and human rights are closely related, further conceptual clarification is still necessary, although it is clear that humanitarian emergencies are to a great extent the result of human rights violations. He noted that OHCHR is very interested in developing a policy strategy together with humanitarian colleagues and that the Office looks to them for ideas that will strengthen human rights. The intent of OHCHR is to interact with humanitarian NGOs as a matter of course and it was noted that the input of humanitarian NGOs would be taken up by the Office.

After extensive discussion relating to the topic of a training module on human rights for humanitarian actors (described in more detail in the Record of Proceedings, a separate document), the participants concluded that the idea of creating a core training module has many merits and should not be dismissed entirely. Many organisations do not have ready access to user-friendly, basic human rights training modules and tools and do not have the resources to develop or produce their own materials. A core training module on human rights for humanitarian actors could benefit the humanitarian community by serving as a catalyst for creating organisational focus and buy-in. It could create a common basis for the understanding of human rights issues. The development of a core training module could provide an opportunity to maximise resources, creating a community of trainers that use a common language and approach.

It was also noted that the process of developing such a module could, itself, prove a catalyst for change. While there was no consensus about what such a training module would look like, participants agreed that such a module must affirm minimum standards in human rights and humanitarian action. There is a need to ensure that training for humanitarian actors is consistent with the human rights legal framework and emphasises core human rights principles. Some participants expressed concern that there is a risk that human rights standards and principles could be "watered down" or couched in terms of the lowest common denominator of agreement. At the same time, it was felt that it would be wise to fully explore existing resources, so as not to reinvent the wheel, and to perhaps build on work already done.

The consensus of the group was that if training is not context-specific, to some degree, it would not be nearly as useful. The group expressed the view that human rights training should involve more than imparting information; it could also provide an opportunity to begin improving human rights conditions. It was asserted that such training could have the benefit of 'explaining' human rights by demonstrating some degree of immediate impact by focussing on the linkage between awareness/knowledge of human rights to practical methodologies to address human rights issues and problems.

The participants expressed the need for a central location for information relating to humanitarian action and human rights. In the end, the group felt it wise to fully explore available resources before embarking on the creation of a core training module. The participants also expressed the view that the workshop had raised much broader issues that had critical implications for humanitarian work. It was suggested that a forum was needed to allow the further development of concepts explored in the workshop.

It was suggested that a website, possibly titled Protecting Rights through Humanitarian Action, could serve as a kind of clearinghouse for a variety of relevant resources and information. The website could help organisations avoid the problem of 'reinventing the wheel' and assist in the development of any new training by highlighting already available training materials (many organisations expressed the willingness to share materials). The website could enable participants to continue discussions initiated during the workshop and it could serve as a kind of toolbox or 'salad bar' where users could select, from a variety of materials, what they needed. The website could also serve as a reference library through the posting of relevant publications or links to publications. (The concept is described in more detail below in Part III, Plan of Action).

More generally speaking, the group wanted to ensure that the momentum gained during the workshop on the broader issue of engagement by humanitarian actors in protecting and promoting rights was not lost. A number of participants had been working in armed conflict situations or under very tense conditions, and several people noted that they had often felt quite isolated. As such, the topic of the workshop was not only of strong interest to participants, but the workshop experience itself was considered invaluable. Participants wanted to continue the rich discussions that took place during the workshop and to be kept informed about materials and resources relating to the topic. Many people commented on the quality and depth of discussion, and the participants were unanimous in their wish to continue interacting with one another beyond the time frame of the workshop. The group found the initial survey of existing materials compiled for the workshop very useful and suggested expanding it.

Back to Contents

II. Workshop Discussion Highlights

Several issues and themes were highlighted by many participants during the workshop, resulting in the emergence of a consensus view on several points. (A more detailed description of discussions that took place during the workshop appears in a separate document entitled Record of Proceedings.)

Two concepts, 'complementarity' and 'responsibilisation',¹ had emerged as central themes during the ICRC Protection Workshop process that took place over a four-year period (1996-2000). The ICRC workshop process involved individuals and experts from more than fifty humanitarian and human rights organisations. The concepts arose as primary topics of discussion - a fact that reinforces their relevance to ongoing discussions about the protection of rights. The idea that organisations need to work together in a complementary fashion to address human rights issues, taking into account their own mandates and expertise ('complementarity') and the need to ensure that organisations and authorities carry out their responsibilities related to protection ('responsibilisation' )² have gained clear acceptance within the humanitarian and human rights communities - the challenge now is to translate these concepts into common practice.

Workshop participants highlighted the need to move from theory to practice - to 'operationalise' new concepts, and emphasised that any new training should include not only information about the law, but information about how the law relates to practice - and should provide opportunities to explore practical solutions for human rights problems that are identified by training participants.

Gaps in the protection net are of major concern to both the humanitarian and human rights communities. Humanitarian organisations can work to address those gaps, but cannot meet the protection needs of populations in danger alone and should never be expected to do so. The ultimate responsibility for the protection of civilians lies with governmental authorities, or in the case of armed conflict, with the civil and military authorities in control, whether state or non-state actors. Those organisations with specific protection mandates have special roles to play in protection, in particular the ICRC, UNHCR and under certain circumstances, other organisations and actors. In the case of ICRC and UNHCR, protection mandates are specifically grounded in international law. The participants stressed the need to ensure that humanitarian organisations are both aware of protection mandates and roles and become informed about how they can work in a complementary fashion to strengthen protection, whether by bringing attention to protection gaps (humanitarian organisations are often in a unique position to identify gaps), planning complementary programmes, developing projects to address specific gaps, or when necessary, pressing entities or organisations to fulfil or internalise protection responsibilities ('responsibilisation').

One gap identified in the workshop is the inconsistent monitoring and reporting of human rights conditions in many countries. While there is debate about the specific role of humanitarian organisations in monitoring and reporting, nearly everyone agreed that some level of engagement is appropriate - it is rarely, if ever, justifiable to observe violations and do nothing. However, limitations and the different mandates of individual organisations were acknowledged. Certainly, staff in the field need to understand what is expected of them should they witness violations. At the same time, there is an understanding that humanitarian organisations will sometimes have to choose lesser or greater involvement depending upon mandate, mission, and capacity, as well as security considerations. Participants noted that the monitoring of human rights conditions consists of more than examining violations - it must take into account those rights that have not been realised, especially in the economic, social, and cultural rights' area. Many humanitarians and human rights workers are concerned about the continuing perceived difference between civil and political and economic, social, and cultural rights, the right to development, etc. and the failure to perceive the linkages between poor human rights conditions and root causes, such as poverty and discrimination, and to address them more systematically. Workshop participants identified a need for further discussion and skill development in the monitoring and reporting of human rights' conditions by humanitarian relief organisations. They stressed the importance of providing adequate guidance to field staff on the matter. Further, there is a need to consider the potential negative effects of interventions.

With regard to training, participants emphasised that there must always be an 'action link' - it is not enough to provide training and information; specific and clear action must be taken to effect change through planning and programming. Thus, there is a need to think through what is meant by 'rights-based programming.' The term has been defined in a variety of ways (or, in some cases, not at all) by organisations that use the term to describe their work³ . It was suggested that the working definition for protection reached by consensus of individuals from some fifty organisations over time in the ICRC Protection Workshop process, might be a useful tool for humanitarian organisations in thinking through their role in protection ⁴ .

The dearth of good programme evaluations was noted. Although evaluation of the effect of human rights activities/protection programmes is difficult, given all the variables involved and the problem of inconsistent or incomplete monitoring and reporting, evaluation efforts must be undertaken in order to further our understanding of what works when, where, and why.

The availability of qualified trainers in the field of human rights and humanitarian action was highlighted as a special challenge. Currently, particularly in the South, sufficient numbers of trainers have not been identified. There is a critical need for financial and other support to organisations to enable the development of training programmes, particularly for the training of trainers in the South. Recognition of, and support to, national staff is of primary importance. It would be valuable to examine this problem in more detail and it was suggested that it would be very useful to organise a workshop on the issue of trainers.

While debate continues about certain issues, such as the role of humanitarian organisations in monitoring and reporting or the need for humanitarians to stay clear of political or ideological controversies, the idea that humanitarian organisations have an important role to play in promoting and protecting rights was overwhelmingly supported by all those present at the workshop. Debate about the meaning of the term 'neutrality' aside, there was widespread agreement that activities related to this role, when carried out in an impartial manner consistent with humanitarian principles, are not 'political' and do not represent a violation of neutrality. Finally, there was strong affirmation of the idea that the unique capacities of each organisation can be combined to form a powerful synergy - a protection net grown stronger with each additional interwoven strand.

Finally, the participants highlighted the need for greater interaction and complementarity of roles between human rights and humanitarian organisations at both the headquarters and field levels. Both types of organisations can learn a great deal from one another and can develop approaches that serve the needs of both. Back to Contents

III. PLAN OF ACTION

The workshop participants agreed on the following plan of action:

1. The survey of existing training and other relevant materials will be completed to reflect work through the end of 2001 (participants were invited to submit materials).

2. Action would be taken to create a working website on the topic of "Protecting Rights through Humanitarian Action" with resources specifically related to human rights and humanitarian action. The website would offer a survey of available materials relevant to the topic of protection and the role of humanitarian organisations (including training programmes/modules; protection or protection-related humanitarian projects and programmes; works in progress, with contact information; books, films, and articles; etc.) and would link to other relevant websites, materials, and resources, i.e. sites of human rights organisations, information about international humanitarian law, etc. Workshop participants likened the website, which would use human rights standards as a foundation, to a 'salad bar' or 'toolbox,' which would allow users to select the information they need.

   In addition:

   • The website could serve as an announcement board for conferences, training, calls for papers and research, etc;
   • Links to organisations interested in the topic of humanitarian action and human rights from the main webpage would be possible. Likewise, humanitarian relief NGOs and UN websites could provide links from their own homepages to the site;
   • The website could be the 'virtual home' for the new IASC publication entitled Growing the Sheltering Tree: Protecting Rights through Humanitarian Action, a product of the IASC Reference Group on Human Rights and Humanitarian Action;
   • The Survey of Training Materials, Tools, and Projects relating to Human Rights and Humanitarian Action developed for the workshop would also be posted on the website;
   • It was suggested that it would be very useful to have information on the website about which organisation is doing what, where, i.e. tracing, individual protection, refugee eligibility, etc.

   Agreement was not reached on maintenance of the website. The view was expressed, however, that an agency commitment to maintaining the website would be necessary. Also, there must be a methodology for posting new materials to the site.

   The following workshop participants agreed to serve on a Resource Team for the website development: Silvia Danailov (UNICEF), Marc Vincent (NRC/IDP Project), Sean Lowrie (Sphere Project), Aimee Wielechelowski (OCHA), Henk van Goethem (Reach Out), Katy Barnett (Reach Out), Brian Keane (OCHA), Matthias Behnke (OHCHR), and Manisha Thomas (ICVA)⁵ .

3. Conference participants requested more such workshops in the future. It has been suggested that planning for a second conference begin. Suggestions for specific topics could be collected from the group. The group could be used as a focus group to test new ideas and projects. Some ideas for future meetings include the following: developing a trainer base in the South; the role of humanitarian organisations in monitoring and reporting on violations of humanitarian, human rights, and refugee law; achieving complementarity (working together to protect and promote rights); and building capacity for self-protection (i.e. building on the Colombia IDP models and the ideas presented in work such as the recently published book, Caught Between Borders: Response Strategies of the Internally Displaced).

   ---

   ¹For a discussion of complementarity, see Strengthening Protection in War (Geneva: ICRC) May 2001, p. 28-36 and The Challenges of Complementarity: Fourth Workshop on Protection for Human Rights and Humanitarian Organisations (Geneva: ICRC) December 2000. Responsibilisation is discussed in The Challenges of Complementarity, p. 58-65.
   back

   ²The term responsibilisation is also considered to refer to the internalisation of a sense of responsibility within organisations
   back

   ³ See the background note, "What is a 'Rights-Based Approach' to Humanitarian Assistance/Development? What does the Term 'Rights-based Programming' Mean?".
   back

   ⁴See the background note, "What is Protection? A Definition by Consensus".
   back

   ⁵Since the workshop, initial steps have been taken by UNICEF, ICVA, and the IASC Reference Group on Human Rights and Humanitarian Action, in collaboration with Diane Paul, as consultant funded by OHCHR, to create a human rights and humanitarian action website. A design proposal was developed and discussed within the Reference Group and will be discussed with the Resource Team. Given budget constraints and a wish to see the website come into existence sooner rather than later, it was agreed that ICVA would house a slightly more basic than originally envisioned website. Funding for the long-term development and maintenance will be required at the end of a six-month trial period if users wish to continue the service.
   back

   Back to Contents

   ---

   APPENDIX 1

   WORKSHOP AGENDA

   Day I - 29 November 2001
   08:30 Coffee and registration

   • Introductions and welcome, M. O'F*. & E.S.*
   • Presentation of Diane Paul's paper - 'The Development of Human Rights Training for Humanitarian Actors: A Partnership Project.'
   • Presentation on responses to questionnaires, and issues raised.
   • Overview of existing materials and modules: a comparative analysis; presentation by Diane Paul, D.P.*
   • Refreshment Break
   • Existing training modules on human rights and protection: short presentations by Sean Lowrie, (Sphere Project), Luis Morago (ActionAid), Nadya Kebir (ICRC), and Marc Vincent (NRC/IDP Project).
   • Plenary discussion on developing training materials
   • Focus group work on current status of human rights training and benefits and limitations of developing a core training module, E.J.* Lunch break
   • Appropriate structural training approaches
   • Small group work, D.P. & E.J.
   • Refreshment Break
   • Presentations to plenary, D.P. & E.J.
   • Summary of day and wrap-up, D.P. & E.J.

   Day II - 30 November 2001

   • Recap on previous day, D.P.& E.J.
   • Incorporating humanitarian challenges into training materials
   • Focus group work, D.P. & E.J.
   • Refreshment Break
   • Focus group presentations to plenary
   • Question and answer, D.P. & E.J.
   Lunch Break
   • Identification of the basic elements of a core human rights training module, D.P. & E.J.
   • Refreshment break
   • Presentations to plenary , D.P. & E.J.
   • Summary, wrap-up, and proposed steps forward, M. O'F. & E.S.

   * M. O'F. - Michael O'Flaherty (OHCHR)
   E.S - Ed Schenkenberg (ICVA)
   D.P - Diane Paul (Independent consultant)
   E.J. - Emma Jowett (Independent consultant)

   Back to Contents

   ---

   APPENDIX 2

   LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

   Name	Organisation	E-mail
   Asfaw, Leulseged	Christian Relief and Development Association (CRDA)	crda@telecom.net.et
   Barnett, Katy	Reach Out Refugee Protection Training Project	barnett@ifrc.org
   Behnke, Matthias	Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)	mbehnke@ohchr.org
   Buchelli, Adriana	Colombian Commission of Jurists (CCJ)	ccjdesc@elsitio.net.coabuchelli@terra.com.co
   Cedeno, Alejandro	United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)	cedeno@unhcr.ch
   Chapman, Rhonda	Australian Council for Overseas Aid (ACFOA)	rchapman@acfoa.asn.au
   Danailov, Silvia	UNICEF	sdanailov@unicef.org
   Darcy, James	OXFAM	jdarcy@oxfam.org.uk
   DuBois, Marc	Médecins sans Frontières-Netherlands (MSF-NL)	marc_dubois@amsterdam.msf.org
   Eguren, Luis	Peace Brigades International (PBI)	quique@nodo50.org
   Goodman, Diane	United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)	goodman@unhcr.ch
   Green, Eva	Danish Refugee Council (DRC)	eva.green@drc.dk
   van Goethem, Henk	Reach Out Refugee Protection Training Project	vangoeth@ifrc.org
   Jones, Andrew	CARE	jones@care.org
   Jowett, Emma	Facilitator	ejowett@mistral.co.uk
   Keane, Brian	Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)	keane@un.org
   Lowrie, Sean	Sphere Project	lowrie@ciuk.org
   Luck, Jenny	Amnesty International	jluck@amnesty.org
   Magardie, Sheldon	Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR)	sheldon@icon.co.zasheldon@lhr.org.za
   Morago, Luis	ActionAid UK	lmorago@actionaid.orgmorago65@yahoo.co.uk
   Nolan, Hanna	Médecins sans Frontières -Netherlands (MSF-NL)	hanna_nolan@amsterdam.msf.org
   Nygren-Krugh, Helena	World Health Organisation (WHO)	nygrenkrugh@who.ch
   O'Flaherty, Michael	Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)	moflaherty@ohchr.org
   Paul, Diane	Consultant	dipaul@citlink.net
   Peterson, Geoff	United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL)	peterson@un.org
   Russell, Simon	International Council of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA)	secretariat@icva.ch
   van der Sande, Marloes	World Food Programme (WFP)	marloes.vandersande@wfp.org
   Schenkenberg van Mierop, Ed	International Council of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA)	ed.schenkenberg@icva.ch
   Sherman, Gmakahn	WorldVision	gmakahn_sherman@wvi.org
   Tiangarajah, Jeevan	Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies, Sri Lanka (CHA)	jeevant@sri.lanka.net
   Thomas, Manisha	International Council of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA)	manisha@icva.ch
   Thomson, Robbie	International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)	thomson@ifrc.org
   Vincent, Marc	Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC)/Global IDP Project	idpsurvey@nrc.ch
   Wielechowski, Aimee	Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)	wielechowski@un.org
   Observers
   Kebir, Nadya	International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)	nkebir.gva@icrc.org