Humanitarian Negotiations with Armed Groups

4 Working Towards More Effective Negotiations

4.2 Three Phases of Humanitarian Negotiation: A Step-by-Step Guide

The approach to humanitarian negotiations with armed groups presented here consists of nine steps, spanning three phases of negotiation: preparation ; seeking agreement and implementation . The first preparatory phase is undertaken by the humanitarian negotiators, while the second and third phases of negotiation require the participation of both the humanitarian and armed group parties to the negotiations.

Before presenting the three phases of humanitarian negotiation, this section provides some observations and guidance on making contact with the armed group.

4.2.1 Making Contact with the Armed Group and the Role of Intermediaries

During or following the preparation phase of negotiations, humanitarian organizations will need to initiate contact with the armed group. If contact has already been established for some other type of engagement, the organization can use existing modes of communication to express its interest in entering into a dialogue with the armed group on certain issues.

When there has not been prior contact with the armed group, initial contact is often best facilitated by intermediaries, especially if the humanitarian organization(s) seeking negotiations are not known to the armed group, or if they do not have a history of operational activities in the country/region. Intermediaries can include church representatives/groups, other humanitarian organizations with existing contacts with the group, community or tribal leaders, or business persons.

The use of intermediaries to initiate contact with armed groups as a precursor to humanitarian negotiations should be guided by the following considerations:

It is important to establish the history and extent of the intermediary's interactions with the armed group, and (where possible) the perception of the intermediary in the eyes of the armed group;
Ideally, the role of the intermediary at this early stage should be to facilitate the process of the negotiations, and not to begin discussions on the substance of the negotiations;

Case Study: Exploring Options for Initiating Contact with LRA in Northern Uganda on a Range of Humanitarian Issues

Except from interview with UN Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, Jan Egeland in November 2003: ³⁵

Q: Do you think that the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) can be positively engaged in a process that could bring the conflict to a peaceful and permanent conclusion? If LRA leader Joseph Kony is unwilling to negotiate, what then?

A: There have been a number of initiatives in recent years and they have not borne fruition, for a variety of reasons, and certainly it is not within my mandate to suggest or initiate new political initiatives. However, through our humanitarian staff, we will try to reach out on humanitarian issues, such as humanitarian access, security for humanitarian operations and convoys, protection of civilian populations, and demobilization and reintegration of child soldiers. And it remains to be seen which channels we can use to send these messages to the LRA. We are already in full contact with the government. But as for the LRA, it is more difficult. However, we have been speaking to community leaders and others who have regular contact with them.

Intermediate church or community groups from the same religious or ethnic group as the armed group, or from the same region, can often more easily facilitate contact through shared affinities or mutual connections;
Intermediaries that have had prior interactions with an armed group can be an extremely useful source of knowledge on the armed group and its negotiators.

4.2.2 Nine Steps for Humanitarian Negotiations

The nine steps presented here provide a generic framework which can be applied to humanitarian negotiations on a range of issues. This step-by-step approach is summarized in Figure 1 below.

Phase I

PREPARATION >>

Coordinate Approach, Decide on Strategy, and Gather Information

1: Coordinate Approach With Humanitarian Partners

Coordinate and liaise with humanitarian partners on overall approach to humanitarian negotiations with the armed group(s), including, for example, by pooling the negotiating interests of various agencies consistent with their mandates, or agreeing on mutually complementary sectoral negotiations. ³⁶ [Section 2.5, “Humanitarian Partners in Negotiations”]
From the outset, coordination of the approach to humanitarian negotiations should involve a humanitarian security advisor to ensure that the intended negotiation process is developed in accordance with the relevant security guidelines. [Section 1.5, “Humanitarian Negotiations and Staff Security Policies, Procedures”]
Identify by consensus a senior-level, experienced lead negotiator. This will depend also on the approach to be taken (lead negotiating agency, pooling of agency interests, sectoral approach, etc.)

2: Decide on Objectives and Strategy

Clearly identify the reasons for entering into negotiations and the desired outcome(s); Identify whether there are ways, other than through negotiation, to achieve the same outcomes. [Section 2.2, “Being Clear About Reasons for Negotiating”]
Use humanitarian principles, policies and elements of international law outlined in Chapter 3 (“Framing the Negotiations”) as the basis for identifying a “bottom line”

Case Study: When Lack of a Common Position Among Humanitarian Agencies can be Detrimental

In dealing with the warring parties, humanitarian officials in Bosnia often failed to present a united front. On the contrary, they often undermined and contradicted each other. Approaches taken by different staff depended largely on which side of the front line they were based. For example, those based in Bosnian Serb areas were often far more sympathetic to the Serb positions than those in Bosnian government areas. Unfortunately, differing points of view on the way in which the humanitarian operation should be conducted were not reconciled. This led to inconsistency at the negotiating table and was invariably exploited by the warring parties.

Source: Based on interviews with UNHCR staff members.

— the least favorable option which humanitarian negotiators can still agree to, or the furthest extent of compromise possible — for reaching agreement;

Ensure that the various humanitarian, development and human rights agencies have achieved consensus on the objectives of the negotiation.
Consider possible alternatives to a negotiated agreement that could be pursued in the event that the negotiations are unsuccessful.

3: Learn About, Analyze Your Negotiating Partner

Identify the main representatives/interlocutors from the armed group; If not a member of the senior leadership of the armed group, the designated interlocutor should be a representative of the armed group. Opportunistic local commanders may attempt to leverage their position within the armed group by promoting themselves as representing the senior leadership.
Learn about the armed group's motivations; structure; principles of action; interests; constituency; needs; cultural and ethnic influences. Assess the level of control exerted by the armed group over a given population/territory. [Section 2.4, “Learning About the Armed Groups”]
Use the worksheet included as an Annex to this manual to summarize the characteristics of the armed group. [“Annex I – Worksheet for Mapping Characteristics of Armed Groups”].

“Do not assume that the good assessment of the armed group that you have done in one place is automatically valid in another place, even just 40 or 50 kilometers away. Personalities, agendas and the balance of power within the armed group may change dramatically even over short distances.”

(Quote from interview with UNICEF staff member)

Phase II

SEEKING AGREEMENT >>

Process, Issues, Options, Outcomes

The next four steps in the process of negotiation are undertaken during the actual “face-to-face” interactions with the armed group.

4: Build Consensus on the Process of Negotiations

As a precursor to discussing issues of substance, work to build consensus among all parties to the negotiation on how the process of negotiation should unfold. This could include, for example, agreement on the primary and alternate representatives from each party, the location to be used for the negotiations, the number of meetings to be held, enabling conditions for the negotiations (what each party will do to provide an environment conducive for negotiations).
Agree on procedures for revising the process during the negotiations.

5: Identify the Issues

Once there is agreement between the parties on the process of negotiation, work to identify the substantive issues to be discussed. Different parties may see the issues very differently. For example, in negotiations to facilitate better participation of girls in the post-primary education system, humanitarian and human rights organizations may view the issue as one of fulfilling the human rights of the girls, while a particular armed group may view it purely as a cultural or religious issue.
Focus on the issues to be negotiated without casting judgment on the armed group's perspectives on the issue.

6: Develop Options

Once the issues to be negotiated are agreed upon, develop options as the basis for possible agreement. Use humanitarian principles, international law and humanitarian policies both to assist in developing options and as criteria for evaluating the available options [Chapter 3, “Framing the Negotiations”].
Humanitarian and armed group negotiators can develop options jointly by brainstorming ideas and identifying possible outcomes acceptable to both parties.
Keep in mind that the options being developed should all be better—in terms of fulfilling the humanitarian objectives of the negotiations—than the alternatives considered in advance of the negotiations. ³⁷

7: Work to Seek Agreement on the Option(s) that Best Meet Humanitarian Objectives

Humanitarian negotiations differ from many other types of negotiations because the parties to the negotiations have different core interests: armed groups want to achieve certain political, economic or military objectives and humanitarian agencies want to protect and assist those in need. Some approaches to negotiation focus on solutions that maximize the interests of both parties. However, for humanitarian negotiators, the primary objective of the negotiations must be to arrive at the best humanitarian outcome, not necessarily to reach an outcome which best serves the interests of both parties.
Humanitarian negotiators should evaluate options under consideration during the negotiations using criteria for determining likely humanitarian impact (for example, the indicators used to evaluate humanitarian program impact).

Phase III

IMPLEMENTATION >>

Define Criteria for Implementation, Follow-up

8: Define Criteria for Implementation

Once an outcome or solution has been agreed upon by the humanitarian negotiators and the armed group, negotiations should focus on defining criteria for implementation of the outcome. Such criteria include: specification of roles and timeframe (who does what, when); reference benchmarks against which to measure implementation; safeguards for the safety and security of humanitarian workers; and procedures for resolution of disputes arising during the implementation (described in more detail in Section 6.4).

9: Follow-up: Monitoring and Relationship Building

Identify mechanisms to facilitate joint monitoring of implementation.
Identify process-related actions that will help to maintain communications with the armed group, such as regular meetings to review implementation. These actions should aim to build on the relationship developed throughout negotiation.

________________________

³⁵UN Integrated Regional Information Network (IRIN) interview with UN Under-Secretary General Jan Egeland in Nairobi, 12 November 2003. http://www.irinnews.org.

³⁶These suggestions for a coordinated approach to humanitarian negotiations are drawn from the 2001 Report of the UN Secretary-General on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. United Nations Security Council, Report of the Secretary-General to the Security Council on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, UN Document ref. S/2001/331 (New York: United Nations, 30 March 2001).

³⁷The work of Roger Fisher and colleagues identifies the concept of a BATNA or “Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement.” If a negotiators BATNA is better than any of the options on the negotiating table, then the best route may be for the negotiator to turn to his/her BATNA. See: Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In 2nd Edition (New York: Penguin Books, 1991).