 
|
 |
6.3 After Negotiations: Commitment to the Agreement
When humanitarian negotiations lead to an agreed outcome (formal or informal) between the humanitarian organization(s) and the armed group, it is imperative to secure the commitment of the armed group to implement the agreement. The following points suggest ways in which commitment to implementation of an agreed outcome can be secured or enhanced.
- Ensuring 'Buy In' and Ownership — One of the best ways in which to secure commitment to implementation of an agreed outcome is to ensure that all parties feel a sense of ownership of the final agreement. It is important to get the 'buy in' of all stakeholders, including those that may not be represented directly at the negotiating table. Even during the negotiations, the negotiators should take the time to 'sell' the process and potential agreed outcomes to their organizations and constituencies.
- Clear Statement of Implementation Roles —Any agreement arising from the humanitarian negotiations, be it oral or written, should include a clear statement of the roles of each negotiating party, and other third parties, in implementing the agreement. An armed group will be more likely to commit to an agreement if there is a clearly-identified set of actions for the group in implementing the agreement.
- Emphasizing Accountability —Humanitarian negotiators should not shy away from communicating the legal duties and obligations of the armed group, both during the negotiations and once/if an agreement has been reached. Armed groups may have more commitment to implementing an agreement if they feel that by not doing so they may be held accountable under the relevant legal regimes (See Section 3.3). For example, the written 'Ground Rules' Agreement reached between Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS) and SPLM/A in 1995 included an explicit statement of “support” for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC, 1989) and the Geneva Conventions of 1949. This recognition of support for the Conventions infers recognition of the duties and obligations of the armed group.
- Including All Parties in Monitoring of Implementation — Armed groups may feel more committed to the implementation of an agreed outcome if they play a role in monitoring the implementation of the agreement. Joint monitoring mechanisms can include, for example: regular monitoring meetings between representatives of the armed group and of the humanitarian organizations (at various levels within the respective organizations); planned simultaneous (humanitarian organization–armed group) visits to sites/access routes features in the agreed outcome (e.g. an IDP camp; or a particular village within the area controlled by the armed group).
|  |
