Abstract
When Michael O’Neill was taken prisoner by rebel forces in Sierra Leone in the early 1990s, his aid organization had provided no security training, procedures, or communications equipment, despite sending him into an active war zone. Now a non-governmental organization (NGO) security expert, O’Neill’s close call and subsequent participation in the movement to establish and formalize operational security risk management for humanitarian organizations illustrates how far the sector has come in this area. Key concepts in humanitarian security risk management such as the enabling approach, residual risk, acceptance strategies, and program criticality are now widespread and well understood. However, the way the international humanitarian system is configured and funded—with large numbers of autonomous agencies dominated by a few mega-organizations and all funded primarily by a small group of Western governments—creates obstacles and disincentives to improving secure access for humanitarian delivery in the places where it is most needed. A key side effect of this, with troubling ethical consequences, has been the transfer of risk-transfer to national staff and partner organizations, who are provided with the least resources for managing security.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Development Initiatives (2018). Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2018. http://devinit.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/GHA-Report-2018.pdf
- 2.
“These 10 companies control everything you buy.” (2019). Business Insider. Retrieved 6 April 2019, from https://www.businessinsider.com/10-companies-control-the-food-industry-2016-9; “These are the Biggest Car Companies in the World” https://www.verdict.co.uk/biggest-car-companies/
- 3.
The Pareto principle is named for the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who observed the phenomenon in his 1896 paper, “Cours d’économie politique,” in which he showed that 20 percent if Italy’s population owned 80 percent of the land.
- 4.
Development Initiatives (2018). Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2018. http://devinit.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/GHA-Report-2018.pdf, p. 26.
- 5.
For example, Lester, D. Parnell, J. & Carraher, S. (2003).“Organizational Life Cycle: A Five-Stage Empirical Scale.” International Journal of Organizational Analysis; 2003; 11, 4; ABI/INFORM Global pg. 339.
Lewis, V., and Churchill, N. (1983). “The Five Stages of Small Business Growth.” Harvard Business Review, 61(3), pp. 30–50.
- 6.
Stoddard, A. (2016) “The View from the Foxhole: How risk and the fragmented perspective of agencies limits the reach of humanitarian aid.” Guest blog for the Advanced Training Program on Humanitarian Action (ATHA), atha.se: December, 2016.
- 7.
Other members of the NGO Security Training Team and early participants of the training who went on to become experts in humanitarian operational security were Jan Davis and Rob Lowe of RedR, Lucy Brown (American Red Cross), George Devendorf (Mercy Corps), Jonathan Dworken (Center for Naval Analysis), David Dyck (Eastern Mennonite University), Heather Hughes (Oxfam), Randy Martin (International Rescue Committee and later Mercy Corps), Toby Porter (Oxfam and later Save the Children), Charles Rogers (World Vision), Jane Swan (Interaction), and Lisa Schirch (Eastern Mennonite University).
- 8.
Various authors (2010). Operational Security Management in Violent Environments (Revised Edition): Humanitarian Practice Network, ODI.
- 9.
Somalia in the early 1990s is one such example where nearly every aid group on the ground was relying on armed protection to operate. UN humanitarian actors and for-profit government contractors that provide large-scale reconstruction aid services in war zones more commonly opt for heavy protective and deterrent measures.
- 10.
Various authors (2010). Operational Security Management in Violent Environments (Revised Edition): Humanitarian Practice Network, ODI, p. 55.
- 11.
Ibid.
- 12.
Stoddard, A., Czwarno, M. & Hamsik, L. (2019). NGOs and Risk: Managing uncertainty in local-international partnerships. Global Report. Washington, DC: InterAction.
- 13.
Hamsik, L. (2019). NGOs and Risk: Managing Uncertainty in Local-International Partnerships – Case Studies: Northeast Nigeria & South Sudan. Washington, DC: InterAction.
- 14.
Adamczyck, S. (2018). “UK counterterrorism travel ban could criminalise humanitarian assistance” ODI: 30 November 2018. Retrieved from https://www.odi.org/comment/10709-uk-counterterrorism-travel-ban-could-criminalise-humanitarian-assistance
- 15.
Charity and Security Network (2018). “Norwegian People’s Aid Settles Enforcement Case Over Democracy Building and Mine Removal Projects US Says Were Material Support” Retrieved from https://www.charityandsecurity.org/News_NPA-_US_Settle_Case
- 16.
Stoddard, A., Harmer, A., & Czwarno, M. (2017). Aid Worker Security Report 2017: Behind the Attacks: a look at the perpetrators of violence against aid workers. Humanitarian Outcomes.
- 17.
Although the Gulf states have begun to contribute significant sums to the formal humanitarian system, the other non-Western largest economies such as China and Brazil do not yet meaningfully participate in the international humanitarian regime and contribute much less to global humanitarian emergency response efforts relative to their wealth.
- 18.
Public donors to MSF in 2017 were Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland (Médecins sans Frontières , 2018).
- 19.
Mackintosh, K. & Duplat, P. (2013), Study of the Impact of Donor Counter-Terrorism Measures on Principled Humanitarian Action. Geneva: Norwegian Refugee Council and UN OCHA.
References
Adamczyck, S. (2018, November 30). UK Counterterrorism Travel Ban Could Criminalise Humanitarian Assistance. ODI. Retrieved from https://www.odi.org/comment/10709-uk-counterterrorism-travel-ban-could-criminalise-humanitarian-assistance
Charity and Security Network. (2018). Norwegian People’s Aid Settles Enforcement Case over Democracy Building and Mine Removal Projects US Says Were Material Support. Retrieved from https://www.charityandsecurity.org/News_NPA-_US_Settle_Case
Development Initiatives. (2018). Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2018. http://devinit.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/GHA-Report-2018.pdf
Hamsik, L. (2019). NGOs and Risk: Managing Uncertainty in Local-International Partnerships – Case Studies: Northeast Nigeria & South Sudan. Washington, DC: InterAction.
Lester, D., Parnell, J., & Carraher, S. (2003). Organizational Life Cycle: A Five-Stage Empirical Scale. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11, 4. ABI/INFORM Global p. 339.
Lewis, V., & Churchill, N. (1983). The Five Stages of Small Business Growth. Harvard Business Review, 61(3), 30–50.
Mackintosh, K., & Duplat, P. (2013). Study of the Impact of Donor Counter-Terrorism Measures on Principled Humanitarian Action. Geneva: Norwegian Refugee Council and UN OCHA.
Stoddard, A. (2016, December). The View from the Foxhole: How Risk and the Fragmented Perspective of Agencies Limits the Reach of Humanitarian Aid. Guest Blog for the Advanced Training Program on Humanitarian Action (ATHA). atha.se.
Stoddard, A., Harmer, A., & Czwarno, M. (2017). Aid Worker Security Report 2017: Behind the Attacks: A Look at the Perpetrators of Violence Against Aid Workers. New York: Humanitarian Outcomes.
Stoddard, A., Czwarno, M., & Hamsik, L. (2019). NGOs and Risk: Managing Uncertainty in Local-International Partnerships. Global Report. Washington, DC: InterAction.
Various Authors. (2010). Operational Security Management in Violent Environments (Revised ed.). London: Humanitarian Practice Network, ODI.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stoddard, A. (2020). Organizational Impediments. In: Necessary Risks. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26411-6_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26411-6_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-26410-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-26411-6
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)