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 How do U.S. NGOs work?

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