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

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Workshop on the Development of
Human Rights Training for Humanitarian Actors
Geneva, Switzerland
29-30 November 2001

CONTENTS

I. Agenda
II. Detailed Report of Discussions

• Day I:
  1. Introductions and welcome by OHCHR and ICVA
  2. Presentations on existing training modules
  3. Focus group work on current status of human rights training and benefits and limitations of developing a core training manual
  4. Summary of plenary discussion on the development of a core training module
  5. Specific suggestions relating to the development of a core training module
  6. General comments on training from the plenary session
  7. Additional commentary from the final plenary session, Day I
  8. Final comments, Day I

• Day II:
  9. Plenary Discussion (Recap of Day I)
  10. Focus group work on 'cluster' challenges
  11. Discussions with Zdzislaw Kedzia, Acting Chief, Activities and Programmes Branch, OHCHR
  12. Identifying the basic elements of a core human rights training module
  13. Plenary discussion and recommendations

From 29-30 November 2001, a workshop was held in Geneva to look at human rights training for humanitarian actors. This document provides a detailed record of proceedings of the Workshop. A summary of the proceedings, highlights of the discussion, and the resulting plan of action are available as a separate document entitled Proceedings.

I. AGENDA

Day I

• Introductions and welcome by OHCHR and ICVA
• Discussion of background paper, "The Development of Human Rights Training for Humanitarian Actors: A Partnership Project."
• Presentations on existing training modules by Sean Lowrie (Sphere Project), Luis Morago (ActionAid), Nadya Kebir (ICRC), Marc Vincent (NRC/Global IDP Project), and Diane Goodman (UNHCR)
• Plenary discussion on development of training modules
• Focus group work on current status of human rights training and benefits and limitations of developing a core training module
• Appropriate organisational structural training approaches: plenary report of small group discussions
• Summary (in plenary)

Day II

• Recap of Day I
• Discussion on incorporating humanitarian challenges into training materials
• Focus group work on 'cluster' challenges as follows:
  • Cluster 1 Core Content [of training programmes]: Finding the 'Right Mix' between Presentation of Relevant Law and Practical Activities to Promote and Protect Rights
  • Cluster 2 Ensuring the Inclusion of and Respect for Persons in Need of Protection (including Human Rights Defenders and other Affected Persons and Groups)
  • Cluster 3 Avoiding Pitfalls; Identifying and Addressing Protection Gaps
  • Cluster 4 Achieving "Complementarity"
  • Cluster 5 Monitoring and Reporting
• Discussion with Zdzislaw Kedzia, Acting Chief of Activities and Programmes Branch, OHCHR
• Identification of the basic elements of a core human rights training module
• Plenary discussion and recommendations

Back to Contents

II. DETAILED REPORT OF DISCUSSIONS

DAY I DISCUSSIONS

i. Introductions and welcome by OHCHR and ICVA

Michael O'Flaherty of OHCHR described the reasons for convening the workshop. The purpose of the workshop was to bring humanitarian and human rights organisations together to discuss the need for a core training module on human rights for humanitarian actors. No general basic module based upon the consensus of opinion within the humanitarian and human rights communities currently exists. While some organisations have had the opportunity to develop resources, many have not and lack the funding, staff resources or knowledge base to develop training materials on human rights. There is a need to further professionalise the approach to human rights within the humanitarian community. In addition, OHCHR and other human rights organisations need to better understand how best to assist the humanitarian community in understanding human rights concepts and developing programmes that respond to human rights needs and problems, especially to enable better coordination/cooperation. The workshop was not intended to set a policy agenda but to provide a forum for discussion.

Ed Schenkenberg of ICVA remarked that a number of participants had already indicated how necessary the workshop was - and how long overdue. There was interest in learning how many organisations used human rights concepts in their work or used protection as the basis for programming. He hoped that workshop participants would express views regarding the target audience for training on human rights and would contribute ideas about who is best placed to become trainers on human rights issues for the humanitarian community.

Selected Comments from Introductions and Expectations:
Participants introduced themselves and commented on why they found the workshop topic relevant to their work. The following are some issues and comments noted by participants:

• Achieving complementarity between humanitarian and human rights actors is important.
• Standards for practice are important, such as those enshrined in the Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief and the Sphere Project's Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response (hereafter noted as the Sphere Project).
• There is a need to be realistic and understand the limits of what humanitarians can do in armed conflict situations.
• There is a need for evaluating the impact of training and that there needs to be more clarity regarding what humanitarian aid workers need to know about human rights.
• The on-line distribution of information and the use of visual materials in training such as videos is important.
• There is a need to translate protection concepts into practice, moving from standards to action based on those standards.
• There is a need to train 'focal points' on protection in peacekeeping and other operations and also a need for training on how to develop effective liaisons.
• The importance of learning how to use traditional milieu to enhance the rights-based approach or to underscore rights issues was noted.
• There is a concern about how to integrate social and economic rights with civil and political rights work.
• The view was expressed that there is a need for more engagement by OHCHR in protection on the ground.
• Cross training between agencies in the field is very beneficial, but it highlights the challenge of finding trainers.
• Interagency cooperation in protection is critical.
• Information must get to people out in the field and mustn't get 'stuck' at headquarters.
• The need for a 'global protection framework' that can be shared between countries was suggested.
• There is a need for the field to catch up to some of the more recent thinking on protection.
• A concern was raised about the proliferation of protection strategies without evaluations as to their effectiveness.
• There is a need to reach national human rights actors with training.
• Ways should be explored to be able to give national staff the tools to demand accountability for the protection of people.
• There needs to be further movement toward bringing standards into actual practice, for e example, water and health standards need translation into practical efforts to enhance protection.
• There is a need to determine the relevance of human rights issues to relief programme formulation.
• On the usefulness of practical information, it was noted that the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement have been useful in the field because the booklet is 'official-looking'- when certain principles were pointed out to local authorities, they were interested because they believed that the document carried some official weight.

Back to Contents

ii. Presentations on existing training modules

Several training programmes that contain specific modules on human rights and humanitarian action were presented to the group by Sean Lowrie (Sphere Project), Luis Morago (ActionAid), Nadya Kebir (ICRC), Marc Vincent (NRC/Global IDP Project), and Diane Goodman (UNHCR)

Sean Lowrie, Sphere Project

The Sphere Humanitarian Charter is seen as a tool for use in discussions about the sectors covered in Sphere (water and sanitation, food aid, nutrition, shelter and site planning, and health services. The Sphere Humanitarian Charter training module, as developed thus far, is focused on 40% knowledge and 60% skill-building. The training seeks to address a number of questions such as, "Who is a humanitarian?", and "How do humanitarians take action and why do they take action?" The training is directed toward all aid workers at any level of a humanitarian organisation, but a special target audience is mid- to senior-level management and senior level operational staff. Every module has an optional tool kit. Each trainer is expected to have knowledge of the training audience and its specific needs.

Workshops are based in the field and there are certain criteria for persons to participate in the Training of Trainers (TOT) workshops, which are eight days long. Sphere looks for people with high leveraging potential, operational experience, and previous training experience. At least 1/2 to 3/4 of the people who take TOT training have continued their work. The workshops are aimed toward specific regions and types of NGOs. There is an effort to ensure cultural and gender balance. The impact of the training to date is uncertain, but interest levels/demand for the training remains high. Southern-based NGOs are doing more than northern-based NGOs on training. The question is how to ensure mentoring of trainers. It is up to those in the field to ensure that standards are met and maintained, so the mentoring of trainers becomes very important. Sphere will commission an 18-month evaluation that will look at Sphere handbook application.

Nadya Kebir, The Ecogia Protection Seminars of the International Committee of the Red Cross ¹

The Ecogia Protection Seminars involve a series of workshops designed to raise awareness of the issue of protection within a variety of organisations. The idea for the seminars arose from the series of workshops on protection held by the ICRC between 1996 and 2000. The decision was made to focus on a target audience of middle to senior level management with experience in armed conflict situations. There is an advisory board for the Ecogia seminars.

Objectives:

• To increase the understanding of humanitarian and human rights workers of the variety of roles that can be played in protection and the concomitant responsibilities;
• To help participants understand the conceptual framework of protection activities in conflict situations;
• To review with participants possible strategies for dealing with protection issues;
• To consider how the various organisations involved can implement these strategies in a complementary manner.

Four Seminars have been planned to date. Each Seminar covers a different aspect of protection:

• Seminar 1 Protecting civilians: responses to violations
• Seminar 2 Protecting civilians: information-gathering, processing and methodology
• Seminar 3 Protecting civilians: influencing State and non-State actors
• Seminar 4 Protecting civilians: operations on behalf of specific groups

The first seminar was held in late November 2001. One of the difficulties was having an insufficient amount of time to discuss case studies and field level responses. Concrete discussions of practical experiences are important.

Luis Morago, ActionAid

Luis noted that around 1999 some people from the field heavily lobbied the headquarters of ActionAid to initiate a 'rights-based approach' to ActionAid's work. He noted that ActionAid "first adopted the approach and then defined it." ActionAid realised that its thirty years of field experience had resulted in a vast amount of knowledge, but that the knowledge had to be written down and disseminated.

ActionAid's training module on rights-based programming is adapted for use to each particular field situation - trainers who are from outside a particular field setting must spend several days in the field before beginning the training. Training: 1) is field-based; 2) includes a basic introduction; and 3) focuses on analysis of a particular situation. Training usually begins with definitions of particular terms such as 'civil society,' 'contract,' etc.

ActionAid went to Sierra Leone to organise a workshop in order to explore the relationship between the work of ActionAid and human rights. The workshop was held over a period of four days and included a field visit to determine whether and how a 'rights-based lens' was being applied to ActionAid's work in Sierra Leone. The attendees then focused in on Sierra Leone and explored the idea of a truth and reconciliation commission and justice issues. Local human rights activists were invited to attend. The workshop format utilised some of Oxfam's work on gender, as the organisers believed there was an obligation to address gender issues. The relationship between food, water, and shelter assistance and rights was explored, and participants were asked to reflect on values. "We needed to go on a kind of journey - we needed to reflect on the human rights aspects of our work," Luis explained. The final day focused on development of a rights-based approach; including how to change the nature of partnerships and how to go about creating a culture of rights.

Marc Vincent, Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) and the Global IDP Project

NRC has conducted ten training sessions on the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement to date (in Angola, Colombia, Sierra Leone, India, Uganda, Burma, Burundi, Liberia, Georgia, and the Philippines). NRC utilised a unique approach in that the workshops brought together local authorities, national, and international NGOs and IDP communities. The focus of the workshops was on capacity-building and improving responses to the assistance and protection needs of the internally displaced at the local and national levels - and in the process to promote dialogue among the above-mentioned groups.

During the workshops, participants were asked to detail violations of the Guiding Principles, which sometimes led to difficult, but useful discussions.

Lessons learned included the need to engage local officials (including the military), as well as IDP representatives in the trainings. NRC found that despite some scepticism, this approach was effective. There were no serious consequences for those who expressed their views during the workshops - and the sessions did not get out of hand. This is not to say there is no risk involved in bringing together displaced persons and those who may represent the very group that displaced them, but the risk seems manageable (the fact that the workshops were held in countries that were for the most part experiencing serious communal and other violence seems to bear this out). The IDPs were usually very forthcoming in identifying their problems and wants. The key to success seemed to be breaking larger groups into small groups of five or six people so that no one feels compelled to take the risk of speaking in front of the larger group, and to begin with less threatening topics. The result of this approach seems to be that a greater sense of trust and openness is created, allowing for real discussions about problems. Observations of the small group discussions revealed them to be very intense, but people were generally reluctant to share details of the small group discussions in plenary.

NRC found that another key to success lay in the preparation for the workshop. NRC worked to develop a partnership between the key players in planning the workshop. An effort was made to invite the local authorities responsible for IDP issues to participate in the training. Often larger organisations, such as UNHCR, and a national NGO were invited to make presentations. The group would plan the agenda together.

The time format for the workshops has generally been three days - fewer is not enough time; more can be too draining for the participants. The number of participants is kept to 40 or fewer people. It is a challenge to determine how focused vs. how comprehensive the training should be. Issues of structure, communications, and context must all be considered.

Workshop reports were difficult to write because they included recommendations and conclusions that could be sensitive. Follow-up of recommendations is difficult unless there is an organisation/person willing to take direct responsibility for following up. It is difficult to determine whether the workshops have truly affected change as there has not yet been follow-up in the countries where workshops were held.

Marc was asked how NRC handles the involvement of state and non-state actors in the trainings. Marc noted that military and police have often attended sessions, i.e. in the Philippines and in Burundi. He noted that while in some workshops there is very frank, and surprisingly open, discussion about issues around displacement, at times the real issues had not necessarily arisen in the workshops but that the sessions still offered an important opportunity for dialogue. There is often reflection about the type of violations that are occurring in the country/region because the modules lead to such discussions.

Marc was also asked how NRC has addressed monitoring and reporting. The small working groups were asked to come up with recommendations and comments on the topic and then to raise these in plenary. People were asked if their responses could be included in the public report.

Diane Goodman, UNHCR Protection Learning Programme ²

Diane outlined an new UNHCR programme on protection. The programme incorporates a number of techniques to interest people, to keep them engaged, and to ensure that there is a 'real-life' result through projects the trainees take on as part of the training. The programme includes a distance learning course that participants must apply to take. If, and only if, participants satisfactorily complete the distance learning course, are they invited to the actual workshop. The programme is open to all protection staff, but organisers have tried to include others as well, and have heavily advertised the course to increase interest. One of the most unique aspects of the training is that it involves a 'peer response network' and peer tutoring by someone more experienced (but not the direct supervisor of the trainee).

UNHCR will be partnering with other organisations in conducting the programme, and there is an intention to allow NGO staff to participate in the programme in the future.

Back to Contents

iii. Focus group work on current status of human rights training and benefits and limitations of developing a core training module

Based on discussions within focus groups, participants identified some of the benefits and limitations of developing a core human rights training manual. In addition, some of the groups provided other comments on the idea of developing a core training module. Comments are grouped below by benefits, limitations, and other comments.

Benefits
A core training module on human rights for humanitarian actors could benefit the humanitarian community in many ways, including through the following:

• Acting as a catalyst to bring organisational focus and buy-in (or 'acceptance' and 'ownership');
• Creating a common basis for the understanding of human rights issues among humanitarian organisations, helping organisations develop a more consistent approach, and further refining what agencies are trying to achieve in increasing their engagement in protection or a 'rights-based approach';
• The module could provide an opportunity to consolidate ideas and reduce duplication
• Sharing experiences without reinventing the wheel;
• Providing the possibility of incorporating or linking to other training and materials. While there are many relevant materials 'out there' (as one participant put it, the ingredients of a salad), there is no 'salad bar' - a place where one can easily locate such materials.
• Maximising resources;
• Creating a community of trainers who could develop a network of support and ideas related to the topic (if developed and disseminated with this in mind);
• Sharing of knowledge about rights across the humanitarian community;
• Increasing of the potential for greater engagement by the humanitarian community on rights issues;
• Meeting an identified need: As the group put it, "It would get the job done - an appalling amount of money is being spent on development of individual training modules";
• The training could be used universally, but the richness of diversity could be brought into the training;
• The opportunity to get across the message that the conceptualisation of a 'rights-based approach' may have reached its height and that "it is time to take it to the field and make it happen";
• Training could be used as a vehicle for field staff to raise policy questions;
• Strong buy-in potential. If a field operation was having trouble convincing headquarters that attention to human rights issues was important, field representatives could note that the training was developed in consultation with numerous humanitarian organisations (and with the support of the IASC) and ask why it should not be used. The mere existence of the training module could back up the views of those staff members who want to explore protection/human rights issues;
• The development and implementation of a core training module on human rights for humanitarian workers might lead to the creation of a process between organisations that could lead to increased cooperation and coordination in the field;
• Creating an opportunity to develop a common language and approach - an opportunity to 'speak with one voice' on issues, such as the need for enforcement mechanisms.
• Delivering a common message to humanitarians on the importance of human rights and their potential roles; even if the common message doesn't 'get through,' there would be greater clarity on particular issues;
• The module could provide an opportunity to incorporate practical issues/concerns from the outset (the "What does building a latrine have to do with human rights?" question.)

Limitations
Attempts to develop a core training module may have inherent limitations, including the following:

• Buy-in may be limited to certain individuals within an organisation (although endorsement by entities such as the Inter-Agency Standing Committee could help confer legitimacy and even a sense of obligation to undertake such training);
• The context of a core training module may be too general - the question of how to apply concepts in practice may be lacking - it is very important that the module avoids this.
• There is a risk of watering down such a module to the 'lowest common denominator' (although there could be at the same moment a solid core of agreement that develops out of the process);
• The module may once again raise debates about the universality of human rights and this could be problematic in certain contexts;
• Human rights law, while always applicable, does have limitations (derogations) and may not be the most relevant body of law in a particular situation (i.e. armed conflict) - the question of whether human rights training 'hits the spot' in terms of what people in the field need must be considered. [Editorial comment: references to IHL, Refugee Law, and the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement could be made and resources identified - and there is always the possibility of linking up the training with others i.e. asking ICRC and UNHCR to make presentations at the workshop when possible].
• The content of a core training module would have to be defined, but sufficiently flexible, but there is a risk that a core training module might be too general to be of real use; it would be necessary for organisations to be able to add on their own perspectives and relate the training to their own missions;
• It would be a challenge to develop a core module that resonated with a variety of people;
• A challenge is the fact that some organisations continue to be concerned that human rights are political and that engagement in addressing rights violations or protection may place their neutrality at risk;
• There is a danger that the process of developing such a module might be perceived as an agenda of the North (one way to bridge the perception gap is to ensure that the views of people at risk are reflected in the planning and development of such a training module, that there is consultation at the sub-regional level);
• If the sponsors and training development staff are all Western-based, the buy-in of people and groups in the South and others will be decreased;
• It may be difficult to determine what information is 'core'(What is the common platform of knowledge?);
• A core module may duplicate what already exists;
• There is a risk of diversion of energy should there be too much focus on the development of a core module;
• Is there a potential that things could be made worse by separating out all the bodies of law and principles (International Humanitarian Law, human rights standards, the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, etc.)? Is there a danger of fragmenting things to the point that confusion results? How important is it for most humanitarian aid workers to understand the whole range of violations? At the same time, is the 'whole picture' somehow lost if only a part of relevant law is presented? How many efforts have been made to bring together information about these bodies of law and the critical nexus of information? Does it really facilitate learning to split up the different bodies of law?
• Repetition of material learned elsewhere could be a problem;
• Can a core module really be contextual?;
• What would the module format look like?

Other Comments
Several other observations were made in relation to the concept of a core training module, including the following:

• It was noted that the process of development of such a module could itself prove a catalyst for change - to improve organisational clarity, encourage the development of common positions, and create more effective collaboration.

• The importance of including knowledge, attitude, and skills within training was emphasised:

  Knowledge:

  • Legal framework
  • Treaty Bodies
  • Agency mandates and responsibilities
  • Fundamental humanitarian principles
  • Basic concepts (i.e. What is a right?)

  Attitudes:

  • [Willingness to engage in] collaboration
  • Sharing of information
  • "Do no Harm" approach
  • The need for a division of labour through complementarity
  • Internalisation of human rights approach important
  • Acceptance of idea that humanitarian work needs to be more principled

  Skills:

  • Analysis
  • Advocacy/lobbying (It is material to be better advocates and to understand how to address concerns to the appropriate body)
  • Ability to articulate concerns
  • What are the relative advantages/disadvantages of a module on human rights vs. a practical guide or field manual? The module should not be too legalistic, but should concentrate on core principles.
  • There is a need to identify gaps in knowledge and skills, i.e. lack of knowledge of basic rights; lack of cooperation between agencies; lack of institutional memory; need for a more systematic referral system for problems; need for improved communications; need for guidelines on monitoring and reporting (is a short guide on monitoring and reporting needed?).
  • It would be helpful for humanitarian organisations to know more about how human rights organisations respond to violations and other human rights issues.
  • There is a need to incorporate human rights into vulnerability studies (such as in the Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP)).
  • One group strongly suggested that they would like to see more of a role in protection for the OHCHR - "We need you out here - we need you to have more of a role in protection at the field level". Michael O'Flaherty responded by saying that OHCHR needed to map out the role of a humanitarian focal point and would appreciate ideas and suggestions, keeping in mind that the organisation is small and unlikely to increase in size. It was explained that the role of OHCHR would be to act as a catalyst rather than to become more operational. Robbie Thompson of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies noted that national Red Cross/Red Crescent societies often have nowhere to go to get an answer on human rights issues and would like clarification on the role OHCHR might play.
  • We must ask, "What is the impact of our humanitarian work on human rights?"
  • This workshop process is valuable and there is a need to keep the process going.
  • The survey of existing materials and programmes is valuable and should be continued.
  • There is a need for more work to achieve complementarity.
  • There must always be an action link.
  • There is a need for trainers.
  • Training needs to increase knowledge, but needs to be action-oriented. It should generally improve action at the field level;
  • There is a need to include entry level personnel in training.

  One group opted to identify the objectives of creating a core module on human rights for humanitarian actors:

  • To further incorporate human rights, international humanitarian law, and refugee law within the work of humanitarian organisations with the intention of improving programming and the protection of people;
  • To identify existing trainers;
  • To create an inventory of training techniques, i.e. field visits, videos, distance learning, etc.

Back to Contents

iv. Summary of plenary discussion on the development of a core training module

The initial step in developing and carrying out human rights training for humanitarian actors is to identify the appropriate audience, which would vary according to the particular organisation hosting the training. Specific objectives need to be clearly defined. The organisers must acknowledge that the training may need to explore the topics in more depth depending on the audience and time available (perhaps with an "if you want to know more" section). The group suggested that 'fuzziness' in the content of the training should be avoided, while at the same time the training should allow the incorporation of local case studies. The consensus of the group was that if training is not context-specific to some degree it will not be nearly as useful. The organising agency should be clear about its mandate/role in the area where the training is being conducted.

In terms of content, the group agreed that while the focus of the training module in question is human rights, the training must somehow link to other relevant law, including international humanitarian law, refugee law, the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, etc.

The second step in the training process (which could be thought of as an objective), would require movement from a basic framework to context-specific analysis.

The group expressed the view that human rights training should involve more than imparting information; it should provide an opportunity to begin improving human rights conditions. It was asserted that such training could have the benefit of 'selling' 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 need for a field manual or module on practical methodologies was highlighted by several participants [editor's comment: in fact, a number of tools have been developed, including case studies of 'best practices', the field guide on internally displaced persons, the forthcoming publication of the IASC Reference Group on Human Rights and Humanitarian Action, Growing the Sheltering Tree: Protecting Rights through Humanitarian Action, etc. These are outlined in the Survey on Existing Materials.]

The training could then move into complementarity mapping³ :

• identifying the various actors involved (i.e. affected persons and groups, potential 'protection allies,' governmental and non-governmental authorities, the military, humanitarian and human rights organisations, UN and other intergovernmental bodies, etc.);
• identifying the roles, responsibilities, duties and capacities of the actors [could also add strengths or unique characteristics/abilities - an example would be the religious/social/justice role played by Desmond Tutu and other religious leaders in South Africa]. It was stressed that thinking should go beyond the current reality to imagining new solutions and new allies - "to imagining what could be," as one participant put it.

Thus, the process moves from knowledge to skills and problem-mapping, which relates back to the idea that the aim is improving the human rights context.

The necessary core information already exists, one person asserted, among those who are struggling - they just speak a different language. They know what the problems are and what they need. "The poor know what they want", he said. "It is important to examine the principles behind concepts - and that is a role that all of us can play".

The organisers must carefully assess the risk of involving people in human rights training when they are members of targeted groups or could be targeted due to their engagement. Sensitive issues are likely to be raised in such training and the possible repercussions of this must be considered. There was some discussion on the need for the 'informed consent' of participants if sensitive issues are going to be raised, although this issue could be informed by the approach used in the IDP workshops conducted by the Norwegian Refugee Council, an approach that permits discussion of difficult topics in small groups (described above). Risk reduction requires consultation with local groups and individuals as advisors during the planning process.

Back to Contents

v. Specific suggestions relating to the development of a core training module

• A core module could be built in sections and then broken down so that there could be flexibility in length and depth to meet the needs of different groups. The basic outline would be the same, but the detail would be flexible. In other words, the module could be adapted as needed for both popular and professional use.
• It is important that the training module permit context-specific discussion.
• The design must be 'beneficiary friendly' and not too theoretical.
• Regarding content, one person said she preferred to teach the basic rights in order to avoid confusion about the law and applicability issues. A woman knows she has the right not to be raped, it was noted, but how do you use a core module to get beyond this to a discussion of effective tools to address violations, attack impunity and stop/prevent abuses? Another participant asserted that "Most NGOs don't have any idea about how to increase the level of knowledge with practical approaches." Other participants echoed the need for a practical approach.
• It would be possible to develop a core module and then begin to differentiate how information would be used, all with the same broad goal of enhancing protection. There exists a whole range of possible actions - needs are going to be contextual - CARE in one region may want to focus on IDPs whereas another organisation will have a different focus. There needs to be a sectoral approach - to 'meet' humanitarian relief workers where they are, through what they do everyday. It is very interesting for the various sectors to see what their colleagues are doing. The Benefit-Harms Analysis used by CARE specifically looks at the cross-sectoral impact of work. Although certain activities may have great value in one area, there may be negative repercussions in another. In fact, it is inevitable that there will be competing goals when looking at benefit vs. harm. It is important for people to understand the effect they might be having outside their sectoral focus and to think more widely in general about what they are doing. The objective is to develop practical skills and to provide the analytical tools necessary in order to perceive the effect of one's work.
• There is a need to look at the core platform to ensure that cross-cutting issues relating to human dignity and worth are addressed.
• Defining the use of the training may be useful - there needs to be a 'reality check' when framing the core content (this goes back to the need to ensure that the training addresses real life concerns that are context-specific).
• A few points were made about the issue of audience:
• Specific objectives are required depending upon the specific audience.
• One participant stressed that humanitarian actors/aid workers should be the primary target audience to avoid taking on too much and watering down the training - although there could still be different levels of training.
• It is important to remember that human rights workers and humanitarian relief workers can still be racist and sexist or have other prejudices - this needs to be addressed. Do people really believe the message of such training? How does one reach them? This is why it is necessary to keep the basic human rights education principles in mind. People need to be able to listen, to analyse their own attitudes, and to articulate their responses.
• A number of points were also made about trainers:
• The skill levels of trainers will obviously depend upon the level of training planned.
• CARE's approach to training on the rights-based approach is relatively lean on law and content; efforts are made to move rapidly to application because otherwise people failed to see the relevance of the training to what they do. CARE has moved to a training of facilitators approach; this way, people's comfort level rises more quickly ('facilitator' is a less threatening term than 'trainer' for some people).

Back to Contents

vi. General comments on training from the plenary session

• The possible negative consequences of training on sensitive issues must be explored.
• There is the problem that sometimes too many trainings are being conducted at once in a particular setting.
• There is a need for resources and support to carry out training.

Back to Contents

vii. Additional commentary from the final plenary session, Day I

It was suggested by one group of participants that it is more important to build consensus on the idea that human rights is an integral part of humanitarian work rather than spending time defining what is meant by protection or a rights-based approach. Human rights should not be seen as an 'add-on' activity in humanitarian work.

The clarification of the roles of various actors is deemed critically important. There is often a lack of understanding by humanitarian aid workers of the differentiation of roles (i.e. those of UNHCR and ICRC). Territorial issues must be addressed - this is implicit in complementarity mapping (see below) and is vital. Mandates must be understood, and organisations with specific mandates should be encouraged and supported (and at times, pressed) to fulfil their mandates ('responsibilisation'). At the same time, all actors should remain clear that the authorities who control the population or segments of the population are always responsible for protecting civilians from the violation of their rights and for ensuring that each citizen can realise those rights enshrined in international (and frequently, national) law.

The links between human rights and humanitarian action must be strengthened at both the field and headquarters levels and between the field and headquarters. It is the responsibility of headquarters to ensure that new thinking about the role of humanitarians reaches the field. As one participant noted, it is somewhat ironic that the impetus for the integration of protection/human rights into humanitarian work largely evolved as the result of field staff initiatives, but now there is often more headquarters support for the effort. A need for the development of management guidance (as well as guidance for 'line' humanitarian workers) was noted). Some participants believe there needs to be a focal point on protection/human rights/rights-based approach and training in every organisation. Further, organisations need to give more than lip service to the concept of capacity-building.

It is not enough to conduct business as usual (i.e. for health workers to immunise people) - we need to ask how we carried out the activity in a way that enhanced or detracted from the protection of persons in danger. One person expressed the point of view that organisations need to be able to justify why they are not taking action in protection. The most important issue is the link between the law and practice at the very practical level.

Back to Contents

viii. Final comments: Day I

• The workshop process is valuable and there is a need to keep the process going.
• The survey of existing materials, projects, and programmes is useful and should become an ongoing project.
• There is a strong need for complementarity in protection and this should be a primary focus of future efforts.
• The need for an 'action link' is critical (movement from the provision of information to concrete ideas about how to apply information about the law, principles, etc. to practice).
• There is a need to concentrate on the identification of trainers and their needs so that they will continue as trainers.

  Back to Contents

DAY II DISCUSSIONS

ix. Plenary Discussion (Recap of Day I)

The group agreed that the strong interest in the topic of training and related issues was self-evident and that a synergistic effect would result from the ongoing participation of the participants and others in continuing discussions. The group recognised the value of evaluation - that as ideas relating to practice become realised it will be important to evaluate the efficacy of the work.

There were several general comments made during the recap, including the following:

• The hope was expressed that the discussion would continue beyond the workshop and the Reference Group on Human Rights and Humanitarian Action was encouraged to continue development of the inventory/survey of available material and information.
• The entire group was encouraged to focus on resource gaps.
• It is not possible to accomplish the goals of enhancing protection with training alone - there is a need to address policy issues and to have more consultation on the topic of protection.
• People need somewhere to go for a review of materials that will point out strengths and weaknesses or at least note the specific focus in some detail.
• A crucial challenge will be to find trainers and learn how to sustain them so they can continue their work after their initial training as trainers. Some participants noted that it is ultimately up to field staff to maintain standards and to keep things moving forward. It is therefore important for them to identify resource gaps and to keep headquarters and donors informed of needs.
• Human rights education is in fact a long-term proposition - each organisation must decide to adopt protection-related principles into policy (and practice). The culture of an organisation is just as important as the training offered to its staff.
• Protection Liaison Officers (such as the Child Protection Officers attached to some peacekeeping forces) and Humanitarian Principles Officers need a common framework in order to define strategies and to keep an institutional memory of strategies. The work of these persons is linked to the specific mission and mandate of an organisation, but must be linked to programming as well, with special attention to the preservation of knowledge within the organisation and of the links to the work of others, including humanitarian and human rights NGOs, as well as ICRC, UNHCR, and OHCHR. One goal of the liaison officer might be to ensure that there is a protection focal point who serves as a 'living clearinghouse' for information-sharing; identifies 'protection allies'; brings people together to discuss protection issues; ensures that protection gets on the agenda of meetings and in negotiations/drafting of MOUs; and acts as a catalyst to encourage a protection approach that reaches at least mid-level management. Such a focal point could rotate between organisations. The role of UN Humanitarian Coordinators may become more important in protection in the near future.⁴
• If one starts with the concerns of the people then it is possible to elaborate from there. That process may lead to discussion about political and other actions that can be taken by the affected population themselves, with international support and protection when necessary, to address protection problems.
• Before massive disasters, NGOs often have their finger on the pulse of an area and can often provide early warning, but it is important to consider action that can be taken by those in the field before something happens. "What is the responsibility of organisations to address root causes? The question is, how does one address the consequences of violations in practical terms? What happens to the victim?"
• Training should include information that is relevant to non-emergency situations as well. This comment relates to the need for humanitarians to consider how to assist programme participants to achieve social, economic and cultural rights outside the emergency context. Programme participants may live under oppressive regimes where the situation is not considered an emergency, but where human rights violations are widespread - or may live in areas where there are warning signs of impending violence.
• It was noted that the word duty had been mentioned in the workshop and that participants had begun to articulate the need to locate the responsibility/duty to respond to protection problems and needs: the SPHERE Project represents one attempt to move beyond words to action, using standards or expectations as a guide.
• It is believed that training on human rights that includes a variety of actors can occur without conferring legitimacy on parties that have not demonstrated a commitment to human rights even if they are included in the training, as the IDP workshops have demonstrated.
• There was agreement that there it is necessary to carefully assess risk before undertaking major engagement in protection projects - at the same time, there is no perfect programme or strategy; thus it is unlikely that programmes will carry no risk. Failure will undoubtedly occur.
• The lack of conceptual clarity around protection, right-based programming etc. is a problem that must be addressed. There is a need for relief organisations to consult with human rights/protection experts in order to gain better understanding and to explore complementary roles.

On the issue of a core training module, participants raised the following issues and questions, some of which were also mentioned on Day I:

• Any module would need to enable trainers to adjust the training to different levels. Thus, the module would require a built-in flexibility relating to time requirements, as well as depth of coverage of information. The module must also provide opportunities for organisations to add-on or incorporate concerns or issues specific to the particular organisation(s) participating;
• The objectives of the module must be clear;
• There is a need for resources to support training;
• Certain questions must be addressed, i.e.: How would the module actually reach the field? What would the dissemination methodology be?
• The module should lead to ideas regarding operational approaches (the 'action link') - there must be opportunities to talk about the activities each organisation could carry out;
• The 'Do No Harm' (Mary Anderson) or 'Benefit-Harms Analysis' (CARE) approaches must be incorporated into training;
• Such a training module could serve to 'force the issue' on certain policy questions relating to the promotion and protection of rights or bring them to the fore;
• The training module should include relevant case studies and these case studies should be context specific (the module could provide a basic framework, but the trainers would have to adapt or add-on to the case studies to make them relevant to the situation at hand);
• Each informational component should also have a practice component so that participants have an understanding of the kinds of activities can be undertaken to 'realize' the concepts presented;
• The module should include information about how to include protection goals in planning;
• The development of a field guide with practical ideas stressing complementarity would be very useful (note: this is one goal of the forthcoming publication, Growing the Sheltering Tree: Protecting Rights through Humanitarian Action);
• The issue of monitoring and reporting needs to be addressed (the work of MSF Netherlands on this topic was noted);
• A core module could serve as a means to promote mutual understanding of roles (complementarity);
• A core module could provide a common platform for action to move organisations along further in protection or human rights work, but there are caveats that should be considered (the example was used of a person diving into a pool without looking first to see if there is water in the pool or a lifeguard available);
• Although most agreed that mid-level management was the appropriate organisational level of focus, the group was urged not to forget the entry level person, and it was noted that many younger humanitarians seemed to have a new openness and attitude (this could be due to the increasing professionalisation within the field of humanitarian work);
• An 'evaluation gap' exists for many trainings - it would be important to gather critiques and to ensure they are utilised in planning new training (lessons learned approach);
• External support for senior-level training may be required;
• Experts can be pulled in to support facilitators in planning and training;
• It was suggested that context-specific content be addressed toward the middle of the module, with case studies being used as an illustration of certain points. The goal would be to learn about human rights, the relationship of rights to humanitarian action, and the development of some concrete ideas on realising rights or addressing violations in the particular environment where the trainees are working. The operational approach is key.
• It is important that a core training module seeks to demystify human rights, not make things more confusing.
• The issue of complementarity of roles should be addressed in the training, and the approach taken by the organisation offering the training to human rights issues such as monitoring and reporting and other types of engagement should be made clear

  Back to Contents

x. Focus group work on 'cluster' challenges

Cluster 1 Core Content [of training programmes]: Finding the 'Right Mix' between Presentation of Relevant Law and Practical Activities to Promote and Protect Rights
Cluster 2 Ensuring the Inclusion of, and Respect for, Persons in Need of Protection (including Human Rights Defenders and other Affected Persons and Groups)
Cluster 3 Avoiding Pitfalls: Identifying and Addressing Protection Gaps
Cluster 4 Achieving Complementarity
Cluster 5 Monitoring and Reporting

Each Cluster was defined by a series of relevant questions for consideration. Several questions were put to all groups

Cluster 1 Core Content [of training programmes]:
Finding the 'Right Mix' between Presentation of Relevant Law and Practical Activities to Promote and Protect Rights

• The participants seemed to believe that the target audiences for human rights training should be mixed, with an emphasis on mid-level management but with some senior staff and some less experienced staff attending. The idea of a sectoral approach was supported by some participants, but the problem of the sectoral approach not working well with mid-level management was raised.
• An essential task is to determine who needs to know what in order to do their job, but we must consider how much is required of staff so as not to overload them. Oxfam decided to use rights-based language in training because they found it difficult to engage people when a lot of legal terms or concepts were introduced. Oxfam is particularly concerned about how to approach situations where violence or the threat of violence exists, where there is coercion (i.e. forced movement), and where there is deprivation (denial of relief assistance, destruction of shelter, etc.). These things constitute breaches of rights but Oxfam's approach is based primarily on the effect of these breaches on people, as opposed to taking a legal approach. Whether rights-based language or a legal approach is used, what is important to get across is the need take action. The fundamental remedy, then, is a change in behaviour and attitude, so that people see it as their job to respond within their capacity. In the analysis of problems, Oxfam invites staff to consider certain questions, i.e. What is the issue or threat? What needs to happen? Has a breach of responsibility occurred? If one cannot answer these questions, one must find someone who can (and in this case, legal expertise may be required). It seems that in any training module a section on protection is required. Staff security is also an important issue.
• UNICEF's efforts have been very similar to Oxfam's with a focus on the protection of the child from violence, abuse, mistreatment and exploitation. But it is important to ask what problems might occur in approaching protection on moral grounds - out of moral obligation or humanitarian principles as opposed to being clear that there are legal obligations and that many states have signed legally binding treaties. It is necessary, in any case, to establish a basis of trust with the local community, with the authorities (civil and military) and others who are present. "Training and focused questions can be used as a catalyst for change and discussion about protection", one participant notd. "Frequently, misperceptions and fears are the issue, and we are often able to broker some dialogue between parties."
• The emphasis on the relational aspects of rights needs to be front and centre. Moral authority is important, especially when the legal system is weak and legal action or redress is limited.

• It was suggested that a core training module approach may be sector by sector and right by right, perhaps relating them as the training proceeds;
• The concept of 'rights-based programming/rights-based approach' does not need to be explicitly defined at the beginning of a training workshop. Instead, menus of ideas and examples should be discussed at the end of the process.

• A core training module should utilise capacity/coping and vulnerability analyses, disaggregated data, and other relevant information in devising a protection plan.
• The inclusion of persons in need of protection and human rights defenders in planning training is critical. Persons within the affected community will be able to share much about how traditional modes of communication can be used to get the message across in the most effective way.
• Decisions regarding confidentiality should be made according to the wishes of affected persons.
• Training should be evaluated in terms of its contribution to empowering people to perceive and take advantage of additional choices. Risk analysis is an important component of this, as empowering persons can sometimes render them more vulnerable.
• It is important to improve the linkages between people/communities under threat so that they can unify efforts and thus increase their strength.
• The best process of empowerment is to build the 'salad bar' of choices relating to protection at the field level.
• Persons under threat and populations in danger must be seen as full partners in the development and implementation of a protection plan.
• Training should be 'people-friendly' - the IDP training modules are considered to be a positive example of training that is non-intimidating, but which teaches a lot. The use of story-telling, drama, role-playing is important.
• The challenge of how to engage reluctant actors in the training process is important.

Cluster 3 Avoiding Pitfalls; Identifying and Addressing Protection Gaps

• It is now accepted by the majority of humanitarian organisations that protection and assistance needs must be addressed, not just assistance needs. Humanitarian issues can no longer be defined in terms of assistance alone. There is a need to work toward accountability/an end to impunity. Issues of accountability need to be touched on in training - the tension between impunity and the need for peace agreements must be explored. When no one is held accountable for impunity it obviously becomes more difficult to intervene.

• The problem of horizontal/vertical accountability must be addressed within organisations, but also between various actors.
• There is a need to examine how national movements, such as one for a Truth Commission, affects humanitarian activity.
• The political aspects of protection must be addressed.
• There must be a longer term perspective to humanitarian action if it is expected that humanitarians can effect change in human rights conditions - results cannot occur overnight.
• It is critical to conduct analyses on the potential harm that our actions may cause. If an organisation is involved in critical protection activities then risk must be considered so that risk is not increased by the organisation's actions.
• Training modules cannot produce answers; they can only lead people in a certain direction and can encourage context specific analysis. The Do No Harm approach, the CARE Benefit/Harm Analysis, the Peace in Conflict Assessment Tool, and other assessment tools are useful in identifying dilemmas and possible responses.
• Needs analyses/needs assessments should be framed to include protection and to conduct threat analysis. ⁵
• The view was expressed that legal instruments should serve as the core framework for analysing protection gaps.
• Protection gaps need to be analysed, but humanitarian organisations have to push for 'responsibilisation' of addressing those gaps - this includes with the government and intergovernmental groups.
• The Sphere Project gap identification sheet may be a useful tool; reviewing the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement in a particular situation suggests a way to assess gaps in that context; and the ICRC's 'egg model' (See Strengthening Protection in War, ICRC) provides a way to analyse gaps. The issue of conferring legitimacy on groups that commit violations is one that requires more exploration - what are the principles of humanitarian action that might be applied? Engagement with 'bad actors' need not confer legitimacy - organisations must consider how to engage. One problem in the field is that humanitarians and others may ask permission to undertake activities too often from armed groups when it is not necessary or advisable to do so.
• Sovereignty implies that a state has rights and responsibilities. Humanitarian organisations need to reinforce that one of those responsibilities is to ensure access to persons in need of assistance.
• Negotiating skills are seen as a critical component of training.
• The group felt that there is a responsibility on the part of the humanitarian who witnesses abuses to take action of some kind, but there are issues of security, stress, and psychological trauma for both the affected population and humanitarian workers. It should be remembered that in some cases, the humanitarian is a member of a population in danger.
• On the problem of access to populations in danger, it was suggested that issues relating to access be woven into a case study or case studies, with reference to legal norms and principles. The training should stress the need for collaboration and networking in achieving and maintaining access. Some specific protection concerns were identified by this group: access, security for women, exploitation of children, and diversion of aid. It was suggested that all these issues be woven into the case study(ies).
• Gaps include lack of knowledge, the difficulties in addressing abstract concepts, a lack of institutional memory, the lack of a referral system (complementary approach), and therefore a common platform of action/intervention, and a lack of information on how to conduct monitoring and reporting.

Cluster 4 Achieving Complementarity

• The Cluster Group agreed that promoting and protecting rights includes a whole range of actors, not just human rights and humanitarian organisations, but also civil and military authorities, members of civil society, religious institutions, peacekeepers, etc. Members of affected populations must also be considered actors and their capacity for self-protection and their ability to provide guidance to humanitarian organisations and others in designing training and protection programmes must be fully considered.
• The implication of the fact that so many actors are involved is that the training audience cannot be only mid-level managers - efforts must be made to reach everyone involved in the work.
• The question is how to address such a wide audience, and whether people from different perspectives or approaches work together or break into groups? Most participants felt it useful to train a variety of actors together as this could further complementarity (as in the IDP training conducted by the Norwegian Refugee Council). In any case, the training needs to be context-specific.
• In principle, the group believes that training a variety of actors is the way to go toward building complementarity. However, cases used would have to be very detailed in order to get to the nuts and bolts of complementary action.

Cluster 5 Monitoring and Reporting

• Any organisation that sets into motion the issue of monitoring and reporting has the responsibility to identify and address potential risks and to know how to offer support in the field for those witnessing and reporting violations.
• Two modules could be developed here: one on the policy of the organisation on monitoring and reporting or how to handle it when one witnesses violations; and one on developing a skill-set relevant to monitoring and reporting (which in the case of humanitarian organisations is not seen as an investigatory role, but is seen as necessary in order to identify patterns and to determine how to respond).
• Certain questions must be addressed, i.e. What is the organisation going to do with the information it collects? How does the organisation help the worker to identify what to do with the information?
• Monitoring and reporting is human rights work, but becoming aware of violations, talking to people about their protection concerns and responding to those concerns as much as possible is an important part of humanitarian work. The more we integrate human rights into humanitarian action, the more we are insulated from the government that asks why you are talking to people about violations.
• Some organisations have deliberately decided not to report violations. Others take a completely different tack. Oxfam expects staff to monitor certain things, some acute and direct abuses, others more widespread. The question is how far organisations should go in looking for information and whether the collection of information is incidental to what the organisation does and is therefore perhaps less risky or controversial (i.e. MSF and the collection of medical evidence or medically-related abuses, such as the amputations in Sierra Leone). What should the organisation do with the information - should it be passed on to a human rights organisation or other body? Should the organisation seek safe, realistic options for action? Is it possible to do both, taking into account the complementary actions that can be taken? In any case, field staff need clear direction from the organisation about what to do with information.
• Information about who does what to whom is extremely important both in terms of one's own interpretation/analysis of the situation as well as one's decision-making about how to respond: how to weigh the potential positive and negative results of possible courses of action?
• The organisational process of collecting and using information about rights issues must be worked through.
• CARE made the decision to be inclusive of all rights in its policy guidelines and is therefore concerned about violations involving the whole range of rights, as well as ensuring attention to rights not realised.
• Organisations must be aware of what monitoring is going on and must consider the full range of advocacy strategies - this depends on solid analysis of why a particular thing is happening.
• How should an organisation deal with the issue of consent to share information given by witnesses?

  Back to Contents

xi. Discussions with Zdzislaw Kedzia, Acting Chief, Activities and Programmes Branch, OHCHR

There was a call from participants for OHCHR to increase its involvement in the humanitarian field and its role in protection. As a result, the Acting Chief of the Activities and Programmes Branch of OHCHR, Zdzislaw Kedzia, was invited to speak with participants. Mr. Kedzia welcomed the participants and after some brief comments, invited attendees to engage in a discussion on the relationship between the humanitarian relief community and OHCHR.

Zdzislaw pointed out that human rights rhetoric has now been accepted by almost all actors, but that "we have reached the limits of rhetoric and now need to deliver." He recognised that while humanitarian action and human rights are closely related, it has not been entirely clear what this means, 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. He expressed the hope that OHCHR would be of more assistance to the humanitarian community and that the Office could explore the details of increased engagement with humanitarian organisations. He sees this new engagement as a long term proposition, but believes that in the short term, the Office can contribute through activities such as attempts to link up the Special Rapporteurs on Human Rights for various countries with the humanitarian community (there are currently some 34 Special Rapporteurs). He believes the Special Rapporteurs could be a great resource to humanitarians wishing to pass on information, to discuss human rights issues, or to ask for assistance on country-specific human rights problems. In addition, the role of the Treaty Bodies could be better linked to the humanitarian community. He hopes that OHCHR will achieve a more standardised mode of ways to bring human rights bodies closer to humanitarian organisations and thinks there is huge untapped potential in this area. A policy paper on the relationship between OHCHR and humanitarian organisations would be a useful endeavour.

Michael O'Flaherty stated that the intent of OHCHR was to interact with humanitarian NGOs as a matter of course and noted that the input of humanitarian NGOs would be taken up by the Office. The Office hopes to work on a system whereby the High Commissioner can increase contact with humanitarian actors during field visits. He reiterated the importance of bringing the Treaty Bodies and other mechanisms closer to the humanitarian community. Michael encouraged participants to let the Office know if there are special concerns about a particular situation, particularly regarding special needs for confidentiality. He noted that it takes 24 hours for an urgent appeal to be issued and urged participants to ensure that they communicate directly with people in OHCHR regarding their concerns or requests for assistance.

Back to Contents

xii. Identifying the basic elements of a core human rights training module

The development of a core training module on human rights was deemed both useful and important. Some participants expressed the view that the development of such a module was an obligation, but as noted in the Proceedings, most participants opted for an initial approach that was broader.

The identification of core elements of a training module proved to be a challenging task and there was significant overlap with earlier discussions in the workshop. Certain recommendations were made, but it is obvious that the issue of core content will require further discussion if such a project were to proceed. One approach could be to identify a smaller group of representative advisors from the humanitarian and human rights communities who could take the workshop recommendations under consideration in developing a tighter conceptualisation of the module.

• There was some disagreement within the group about whether it would be necessary to define the terms 'rights-based approach' and 'protection' in a core module. Some participants did not feel it wise to begin with the rights-based approach as a starting point. There was agreement that there would need to be a mix of legal and practical information. There was not agreement about whether a sectoral approach would be useful, but most participants seemed to agree that training needs to connect to what people do everyday while helping them to think about what they do in a different way (sometimes called 'using a protection lens'). Specifically, participants stressed the importance of building links between the work people do (or the challenges they face in their work) to the relevant law so that they understand that their work is grounded/underpinned by international law - that there is an international structure or backbone that has legal weight supporting them;
• The inclusion of Frequently Asked Questions about rights-based approaches and protection with examples of how different agencies address these issues might be useful;
• It was suggested that training begin by identifying existing national law in the country of concern where the training is taking place and linking it to international human rights law;
• It might be useful to strive toward an equal balance of knowledge and practical skill-building activities;
• The duties of humanitarian aid workers should be identified (the implication being that humanitarians have a duty to address human rights issues or protection problems that affect their programme participants to the best of their ability;
• Time should be spent on concepts rather than definitions, exploring the implications for work in a particular context;
• One tool that might be useful in thinking practically about rights involves looking at how advocacy is linked to various aspects (monitoring and reporting informs advocacy efforts, yet advocacy may be needed to ensure adequate monitoring and reporting; education is required before people can become effective advocates; advocacy for capacity-building is critical to success; and advocacy for enforcement of the law is necessary to attack impunity and break the cycle of violence;
• Practical case studies are useful as a basis for the discussion of law; similarly, discussion of the law should be grounded in practical examples (which can be briefer than a full case study);
• Basic knowledge of the law seems necessary in order to proceed to skill-building, but care must be taken not to 'lose' people by focussing excessively on legal information. A minimalist approach was recommended. There is a need for basic knowledge of the legal framework, but there is a greater need for consciousness-raising about human rights and the need for organisational and cultural change;
• Training should include information on human rights law, and should briefly refer (noting other sources of information) to international humanitarian law, refugee law, the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, etc. (i.e. the Code of Conduct in Disaster Relief, the Sphere Humanitarian Charter, etc.);
• Training should highlight those groups in need of special protection and identify relevant law (i.e. children and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, women and the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, etc.);
• A core training module should stress the need for continuous analysis of the situation and subsequent adaptation of strategies.

Back to Contents

xiii. Plenary discussion and recommendations

• The group noted that the development of both individual skills and organisational response/policy management were critical to the goal of integrating human rights into humanitarian action. This would require information, responsibility for taking certain steps, and support.
• There is a need to identify particular thematic areas/core issues and to develop a menu of existing resources (while this process was initiated at this workshop, more work is required).
• The group strongly recommended that specific resource gaps be identified.
• It was suggested that it would be useful to have an advisory group to systematically review materials/products/processes. In addition, a process of consultation on policy-making around related issues would be useful.
• The importance of linking with or engaging in conflict resolution projects was highlighted.
• Learning strategies that are effective in building a culture of human rights must be explored. Much could be gleaned from the human rights education community.
• One participant remarked that it would be useful to produce a set of papers on the various aspects of the discussions at the workshop.

Back to Contents

Closing Recommendations: See Plan of Action (in Workshop Proceedings)

1) Information about the ICRC Ecogia Protection Seminars can be found on the ICRC website at www.icrc.org/ecogiaprotsem

2) Details about this training programme will be added to the Survey of Existing Materials on Human Rights and Humanitarian Action.

3) See The Challenges of Complementarity: Fourth Workshop on Protection for Human Rights and Humanitarian Organisations, ICRC, December 2000, p.54-55. Complementarity mapping is described as "a conceptual model (based on the work of the protection workshop process) which may be used as a tool to identify activities and clarify the terms of strategic complementarity. It follows three steps, which correspond to three questions: 1. What activities are relevant to the protection effort for a given target group? 2. What mode of action best applies to each specific activity? 3. What is the attitude of the authority in charge toward the pattern of abuse in question (in terms of willingness and ability to do something about it)? Once these questions have been addressed, the area of special expertise of each organisation stands out with greater clarity, which facilitates a shared strategic approach based on each organisation's capacity and modus operandi rather than on its mandate. A reasonable assessment of the capacities of one's own organisation and knowledge of the other organisations are required.

4) UN Security Council Resolutions 1265 and 1296 have important articles relating to the roles of peacekeepers and others in the protection of civilians and the support of important issues such as humanitarian access. These resolutions may be found at http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2000/res1296e.pdf and http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1999/99sc1265.htm. The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) has developed guidance for Humanitarian/Resident Coordinators on responsibilities related to the protection of internally displaced persons. The guidance suggests, inter alia, that the Humanitarian/Resident Coordinator ensures that there is a comprehensive plan for responding to the assistance/protection needs of internally displaced persons. See Inter-Agency Standing Committee, "Supplementary Guidance to Humanitarian/Resident Coordinators on their Responsibilities in Relation to IDPs," XXIIIrd Meeting, 5 April 2000, Rome.

5) A model for analysis and protection planning was suggested by Enrique Eguren that includes analysis of risk, coping strategies or capacity, potential action, and complementarity: In the model, R=Risk, T=Threat, V=Vulnerability, and C=Capacity or coping ability. Risk can be assessed by examining the nature of the threat in relation to the vulnerability of targeted persons and can be mitigated by capacity, expressed as the equation:

R=T x V C

All three factors (threat, vulnerability, and capacity) can be affected by the actions of protection allies through a complementary role. For example, one organisation may monitor and report on the threat source, and this activity may lead to advocacy for the victims and pressure upon those committing abuses to stop (through a variety of approaches by a variety of actors, i.e. discreet discussions with the authorities by one organisation, public denunciation by another, criminal charges or the development of a truth commission by still other actors). Organisations may also work to decrease the vulnerability of the population in danger by building capacity, using field presence, designing and implementing programmes that reach the most vulnerable, etc. Protection allies include national and international actors, both those on the ground and those outside. There is a need to broaden thinking about potential protection strategies and this model can help break protection problems and needs down. Action Analysis includes detailed thinking about what can be done by whom and the development of an action plan (complementarity). The IASC Reference Group on Terms of Engagement with Armed Groups may provide some guidance on this issue. The Reference Group will review existing practices and experiences and will review and document the relevant principles derived from humanitarian and human rights law and practice. The group also plans to issue a 'best practice' manual with proposed field procedures.

Back to Contents