Osac Speech Final

Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) 24th Annual Briefing: Confronting Global Risk Sam Worthington, InterAction Keynote Address, November 18, 2009

“NGO Security: Managing Risk in a Changing World” 1. Thank you’s Ambassador Eric Boswell, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Diplomatic Security OSAC Executive Director Daniel J. Weber OSAC Deputy Executive Director Michael Limpantsis The rest of the OSAC team 2. Framing comments U.S. non-profits or NGOs have decades of experience working in some of the toughest global environments and do so often for years. Start with two stories When things worked o Amb. Eikenberry meeting o Staff numbers on the ground – 11,000 o This past year an InterAction member implementing a food security agricultural project in a Taliban-controlled area of Helmand province in Afghanistan had their vehicles stolen from their compound by the Taliban o The local tribal leaders immediately responded and the Taliban returned all of their vehicles. They wanted their irrigation project finished and the U.S. NGO and its local staff was seen as a trusted crucial partner to improving their agricultural productivity When they didn’t o For 13 years as the President of Plan USA before my current role in InterAction, I was engaged in helping lead a global NGO o We were active in Pakistan for years before the earthquake o With a large Pakistani staff o Just after my tenure at Plan ended, the global organization’s Mansehra, Pakistan field office was targeted by a coordinated

1

terrorist attack with small arms, hand grenades and explosives. In the attack, 4 local staff lost their lives and 8 more were injured  Plan USA is a U.S. non-profit and the vast majority of its resources depend on generous private contributions; nevertheless the facilities in Mansehra were targeted for the simple fact that they were occupied by the staff of a ‘western’ organization o They were hit because they were the easiest target and had not applied some of the lessons our community is trying very hard to implement o They did have the support of the local community and thousands of people attended the funeral o The staff killed were from Mansehra, and the attack was seen as an attack on the community itself Sadly humanitarian workers are at times targeted in today’s world. In 2008 around 200 humanitarian workers lost their lives and 23 were part of the InterAction community This number exceeds the 155 American soldiers killed in 2008 in Afghanistan In very challenging environments InterAction members, who are employing public and private U.S. foreign assistance resources, must establish themselves as neutral and independent actors simply to remains functioning humanitarian organizations o Indeed, in order to partner most effectively with local communities, U.S. NGOs do not hire major security firms or otherwise carry guns or other weapons o Instead, our community relies on decades of well-established relationships with local partners and reputations as impartial and independent actors to keep our staff safe and operations secure o The effectiveness of U.S. investments in foreign assistance projects and the safety of staff and beneficiaries depend on such neutrality and independence It is an approach that usually works but sadly not always in what is becoming an increasingly dangerous world for humanitarian workers

2

Today, I’ll try to answer several key questions to help you understand how we approach NGO Security & Managing Risk in a Changing World o o o o o

How do U.S. NGOs work? Why is security a growing concern for InterAction’s members? What is the U.S. NGO approach to security? What are the core principles that guide the work of U.S. NGOs? How does InterAction help the U.S. NGO community?

3. What is InterAction 25 year history Over 185 members, U.S.-based nongovernmental organizations (U.S. NGOs), working in humanitarian aid and development assistance around the world o Of that, about 69 are humanitarian organizations, responding to emergencies, natural disasters and conflicts o About working to find long-term solutions to poverty They manage over $9 billion year, with 70% coming from private donations. o If any of you have ever given to an appeal to support programs focused on the world’s poor, thank you InterAction members address environmental and conservation concerns, human rights, refugee resettlement, democracy and governance, gender, and advocacy efforts, as well as many more issues We serve as a leadership space for the U.S. NGO community 4. Reflecting on how to approach global risk Contrast corporate vs. NGO approaches Corporations: As entities owner by their shareholders corporations are concerned about their balance sheet and bottom-line loss o The drive to protect any investment and see some returns shapes how and where a corporation engages overseas o This in turn shape corporate approaches to risk o Appetite for risk depends on how much you have at stake and depends on the level of investment. Sometimes cutting one’s losses and getting out is a viable option o Corporations do care deeply about the physical safety of their employees and want to protect their lives and property which is one 3

clear thing NGOs have in common with the private sector operating overseas NGO or U.S. non-profits: Are driven by missions and we often take risks that would be deemed unacceptable to a U.S. corporation o When making risk management analyses NGOs have to recognize that withdrawal from a challenging environment may lead to loss of life among vulnerable populations, a consideration which often leads to acceptance of greater risks that the U.S. government or corporations will allow its civilian employees  For example, NGOs were out and about in both southern Lebanon and Pakistan during the Hezbollah-Israeli war, when the UN was in lock down and while USG employees were confined to the embassies o Another difference is the extent of remote control, leaving national employees to run programs after all international staff withdraw because the threat level is unacceptable  This shift of risk explains in part why so many national staff are killed  Our bottom line is that we must remain accessible to the local population even in the most difficult circumstances.  Unlike a U.S. Embassy a U.S. NGO cannot operate effectively from a fortified building 5. How do U.S. NGOs work? With 106,000 staff in over 150 countries the InterAction NGO community has evolved into a multinational movement. o Over 95% of our member’s staff are local hires and the international staff may be recruited from around the world. o Some of the largest are part of global NGO federations which raise resources around the world and the largest has 46,000 employees Our work in driven by a set of common values, the affirmation of human dignity, a focus on addressing human needs no matter what nationality, background or any other political designation, a desire to advance human

4

rights, and in particular economic and social rights in often very difficult external environments What programs we deliver is driven by the interests and needs of a particular community, village, slum dwellers or camp. o Whether it is establishing a health clinic, access to water and sanitation, providing agricultural irrigation, or a school and related education services, the local population is involved in shaping and implementing the projects o They own the effort o Local ownership is not an abstract concept but central to the work we do and our identity in-country. It is not just a matter of consulting a community but working with the community and its various leaders (with a particular focus on women) o This approach to our work shapes the identity of many of our members as trusted local institutions around the world 6. Why is security a growing concern for InterAction’s members? We where once only victims of accidental violence Unfortunately we have seen this decade a growing threat as we are directly targeted for attacks o In 2008, 260 humanitarian aid workers were killed, kidnapped or seriously injured in violent attacks o This toll is the highest in the last 12 years of tracking, and has risen most dramatically in the past three years o The 2008 fatality rate for international aid workers exceeds that of UN peacekeeping troops o InterAction ceremony and wall Our immunity is gone Assailants are motivated by politics (oppose what we do and/or our presence) and greed (we have assets they want) o According to the Humanitarian Policy Group, politically motivated incidents rose from 29% in 2003 to 49% in 2008 Aid groups are now being attacked despite attempts at neutrality o Because they are perceived as Western, though almost all our staff is local or national staff 5

o Some groups even appear to be targeting aid organizations because they are providing aid itself o What we call “humanitarian space” is closing and being threatened by both terrorists or insurgents, and by the governments that support us 7. What is the U.S. NGO approach to security? We have one comprehensive approach, with three components, and we use them all together, to differing degrees: o Deterrence o Protection o Acceptance Deterrence: NGOs cannot emphasize deterrence as do not have or want to have a capacity for retaliation o We do security without deterrence o We cannot rely on protection to the same extent as government or business with hardened site, entry barriers, and armed guards can o We must remain accessible to those we serve Protection: We do, however, put bars on windows, lock the safes, maintain vehicle use logs, check out local partners to be sure not dealing with crooks or terrorists o For example, Plan in Nairobi – staff had “lock down” rooms in their houses Acceptance: We primarily rely on acceptance by the local community – much like Peace Corps Volunteers o They tell us if we are in harm’s way Example – of acceptance by a community: o One of our members had a doctor working for their program in Pakistan kidnapped by insurgents  After being kidnapped, the other, local health care workers in the area went on strike to demand his safe return o As a result the doctor was safely returned unharmed o An example of acceptance by the community 6

NGOs are also unique in how we do our risk assessment methodology: o NGOs do a program assessment first, o then a threat assessment, o then a vulnerability assessment o Our risk assessment/security strategy is designed so that it allows our programs to work How do you judge loss of life as acceptable? Even while we’ve lost a high number of workers globally, it is important to note that our members have 106,000 employees around the world – while we mourn the 23 US NGO aid workers that were killed in 2008, it represents 2 deaths for every 10,000 employees. CEO call on Darfur An unacceptable number but our approach to security does keep the attacks and resulting fatalities down 8. What are the core principles that guide the work of U.S. NGOs? Humanitarians are engaged in lifesaving and preserving activities for populations affected by natural or man-made disasters Most subscribe to a Code of Conduct o Dictates that they act impartially, i.e., provide assistance without regard to politics, ethnic or religious belief, o This implies a commitment to independence  That they do not implement the policies of donor governments except to the extent the policy coincides with their own policy o Do not provide political, economic, or military information for purposes other than strictly humanitarian Impartiality and independence are required o To have access in contested areas o To avoid being attacked by those opposed to any group humanitarian  NGOs have to strike a balance between local groups opposed to the policies of governments and donors with which we may be associated as implementing partners 7

o Example:  On a trip to visit our member’s program’s in Darfur, I recall walking through the central square in El Fasher Darfur with Government, Janjaweed and rebel forces occupying the sidelines armed with heavy machine guns. We were very carefully watched and the same was true when we drove through the square in a dilapidated van with a red circle with a bar “NO GUNS” logo printed on side  The next morning member security coordinators activated their phone tree and we went into a lock down mode restricting all NGOs to their compounds. The Chinese envoy was visiting with extensive security and the resulting highly volatile environment made it impossible to travel across the small town for several hours. In places where a firefight often does erupt it is important not to be at the wrong place at the wrong time Core principles cont’d Our humanitarian and development projects are community owned o The way we conduct our development programming provides us our security o We work in and through communities – our projects belong to the community and are not a “foreign gift” o Therefore, an attack on a project becomes an attack on a community itself o Sadly this doesn’t mean that the NGO or community will not be attacked. o Examples:  One of our members has been specifically targeted in recent years for providing health services to women on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border  There are countless reports in the media of young girls being attacked for attending schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan, often in schools or through programs that NGOs have assisted in building

8

Our community has a deeply ingrained ethic of sustainability, and connecting communities to the global economy and we work primarily with private resources o The majority of our resources come from the American people, including corporations  Much of our work is an extension of Corporate Social Responsibility programs o Private funding and link to the global economy o Our members work at the margins of the global economy o One good example of our sustainability is in Rwanda, where NGOs have been working for years, and where many Americans now get their coffee from (Starbucks, Caribou, other large roasters) 9. How does InterAction help U.S. NGOs? InterAction is leading a number of efforts to increase the professionalism of our security workers o US NGOs have hired security professionals to work at HQ and in the field – InterAction has three of our own (note John Schafer in the audience) We have developed training program specifically designed for the NGO community – an example is hostage negotiation We have incorporated minimum standards for security (MOSS) in our obligatory PVO standards o To be a member of InterAction members must go through a self certification effort the now has detailed minimum standards for security systems We have developed a close working partnership with the United Nations, including o Negotiating an accord with the UN – Saving Lives Together – providing for cooperation in dealing with security o DRC example We have begun the formation of a professional association

9

o The Security Advisory Group – membership is open to all staff of InterAction member organizations with an interest in security management and staff safety and security We have facilitated the creation of NGO security forums at disaster sites One example of this is ANSO – the Afghan NGO Safety Office o ANSO was created in 2002, by a number of our member organizations and local organizations working in Afghanistan, to share information, and serve as a platform for NGO security professionals in Afghanistan o ANSO now has a headquarters in Kabul with regional representatives, and holds regular meetings for members to share information, discuss current issues, and facilitate training and technical assistance We’ve developed over time a working relationship with the Department of Defense, and have negotiated with DOD guidelines on how humanitarian NGOs and U.S. Armed Forces will relate to each other in hostile environments 10. Relations with OSAC (Overseas Security Advisory Council) We have worked with OSAC on a number of occasions, including in joint trainings o Ambassador Jim Bishop, who leads InterAction’s humanitarian work (note Jim in the audience), serves on the Advisory Council as well as Michael O’Neil, from one of our member organizations, Save the Children o Through this long-standing partnership, we have developed a positive working relationship with OSAC o Close to 40 of InterAction’s members take part in OSAC, and we continually encourage our new members to join o OSAC’s country council structure has informed how InterAction members work together in the field, and we encourage the same type of coordination among our members o OSAC staff have participated in InterAction’s annual forums and training events o We have shared security incident information and analyses in the past

10

o We’ve also participated in OSAC outreach activities with the university community 11. Conclusion We have also have been able to bring an international NGO perspective to OSAC’s leadership o Our members choose to work and remain in “deep field” locations where many other organizations don’t operate in o Our strategy for approaching security in the field has worked, and while we mourn those who have lost their lives, that number is still only a fraction of the number of workers we have in the field o We lend the expertise we’ve gained through that experience to OSAC as well o We’re glad for the partnership we’ve developed over the years with OSAC  Particularly in a time when our sense of immunity as part of a humanitarian space is threatened o We do look forward to continued engagement and partnership with the OSAC community in the future, and strongly believe that our community will continue to strengthen our own security management as a result of this partnership, as well as offer our own insights, experiences, and expertise to the OSAC community o Lives will still be lost  Professional security  Acceptance is our main tool o Thank you again for inviting me to speak today

11