Over the past twenty years there has been a progressive and positive professionalization of the safety and security function of aid organizations, partly as the contexts and operational environment we program in have changed and demanded it, though also as a result of our experiences and peer learning through our engagement in networks and collaborative security platforms. However, the lessons that we have learnt as a sector, based on collaborative sharing and the equity value that this brings, must not be lost as INGO security collaboration becomes a discipline in its own right.
Influencing security practices – Getting it right
A number of positive factors have supported the growth and maturing of INGO security practices:
- An evolution from siloed field and operational coordination platforms where the sharing of formal INGO safety and security information began (such as GANSO, SPAZ, BINGO, etc.)
- The sustained willingness of aid agencies to share information and experiences with each other.
- Advancement in technologies that allow INGO safety & security professionals to establish rapid, interest focused ad-hoc support networks.
- An increase in Donor supported forums that have championed INGO safety and security practices, such as INSSA, OSAC and GISF, Interaction (until recently), etc.
Another positive influence has been the broad alignment within the aid sector on a common frame of reference to duty of care, civil military engagement and access, among others. This in turn has informed our approach to Security Risk Management (SRM). Equally, the value of both operational and strategic collaboration has grown and become an essential component of our oversight.
Dedication through dedicated platforms
The majority of INGO led safety and security networks, with few exceptions, maintain open and accessible platforms which balance access to a collective base of knowledge and best practice.
The majority of INGO led safety and security networks, with few exceptions, maintain open and accessible platforms which balance access to a collective base of knowledge and best practice. In addition to the collaboration space being open and progressive, many agencies have also invested and professionalized their internal security functions. This evolution sees safety and security represented at HQ, regional and country office levels. Also, as a result of donor investment, there is a notable increase in the number of dedicated information and incident reporting organizations: Insecurity Insight, Aid Worker Security Database, etc. The cost-free access to reports and cumulative data is an invaluable and equitable benefit for the aid community and is now informing our strategies, investments and influencing policy.
There is also a growing array of country level security coordination platforms and initiatives; PLSO, WFP, INSO, UN Saving Lives Together, etc., where active safety and security cooperation and networking is part of their DNA. These country-level coordination platforms are as important today as they ever have been and thankfully remain sustained despite increasing membership restrictions and constrains.
The constant that drives the success of these platforms is of course the confidence of the practitioners who are invested in and who access them. As long as this constituency finds value in the services provided by these platforms, they will remain relevant. Herein lies both a challenge and an opportunity.
The fading voice of the practitioner
The voices of the practitioners are fading and there is the potential where the member may become seen as the “grateful beneficiary” rather than the partner and stakeholder they once were.
While there is a high level of engagement and support from members to the various strategic and operational INGO safety coordination organizations or networks, there is often a siloed approach to their operations and, unfortunately, a limited level of collaboration between these different groups at a strategic level. The example of the GISF and UN Saving Lives Together (SLT) is a rare example of inter-platform engagement at a strategic level, where GISF supports both the SLT working group and oversight committee.
Unfortunately, whether as a side effect to multiple competing platforms or due to broader engagement from donors, there is a growing sense as these platforms evolve and become independent entities of a shifting narrative and self-promotion of these platforms. The voices of the practitioners are fading and there is the potential where the member may become seen as the “grateful beneficiary” rather than the partner and stakeholder they once were. This is most notable in how these platforms present themselves as subject matter experts to the donor community. By positioning themselves as the SME, these networks risk losing their authentic voices that reflect the realities faced by their constituent members. As these networks consolidate their authority, there is a risk that they suppress the concerns and experiences of the field level security practitioners by instead pursuing their own organizational agendas.
A need for transparency and accountability
The emerging gap as between practitioners and networks raises concerns of transparency, as it is presently unclear how collaboration platforms manage and respond to issues raised by their members. Currently, there are no industry wide standards that these networks and platforms follow or which they are held accountable. In contrast, many of these groups implement strict membership requirements and agreements to which their constituents are held accountable – if they want to access industry gatherings, conversations, and community. Many networks have created steering or oversight committees; however, these frequently appear symbolic in nature, with serving members selecting their replacements and extending terms for years. This quiescence risks losing much needed grassroots voices and perspectives, the rigor of independent opinion or innovation and a willingness to embrace change. It seems that while the role of the INGO security practitioner has professionalized, is held to clear standards, and works to embrace innovation, that the collaborative networks and platforms are struggling to embrace these approaches themselves.
It is hard to see a future without INGO safety and security networks, the role and services that these platforms provide and enable are a critical part of a risk managed approach for many INGOs. Each platform has its own origin, culture and membership base; though to be truly supportive of their stated aims there must be a clear level of accountability and members need to be at the center of the mission. Platforms must be prepared to openly engage and share information between networks, this will benefit the end user, the practitioner. Equally, NGOs need to speak up, give feedback, raise ideas and be active in theses spaces. The past ten years have unfortunately illustrated that new challenges and threats with increasing levels of complexity will be a constant going forward. If coordination platforms are to remain relevant and valuable, they will need to evolve at the pace of the sector and practitioner they serve.
Not a Think Tank 