 
|
 |
6.5 Measuring Effectiveness of Humanitarian Negotiations
By measuring the effectiveness of humanitarian negotiations, humanitarian actors can learn from ongoing and past interactions with armed groups, and can better prepare for future negotiations. Self-evaluation by the humanitarian negotiators themselves and their parent organization(s) can highlight what worked, what didn't work, and what could have been done differently.
Case Study: Humanitarians' Views of Factors Influencing Success/Failure of Negotiations in Angola between 1998 and 2001
These factors were identified by humanitarians working in Angola through a series of interviews in Luanda (November and December 2001). 47
Structural Factors: (1) Existence of framework agreements; (2) level of national social engagement and commitment to humanitarian values; (3) institutional (un)certainty; (4) level of international political engagement;
Organizational Factors: (1) institutional credibility; (2) organizational mandate; (3) level of institutional autonomy; (4) organizational resources, technical expertise and capacity;
Individual Factors: (1) local/cultural knowledge; (2) extent of negotiation preparation; (3) organizational seniority of humanitarian negotiators; (4) negotiating skill level. |
Very often, humanitarian negotiators will not have the time available to undertake extensive lessons learned studies in the field. In such cases, the following guidance points may assist humanitarian agencies in measuring the effectiveness and success of their negotiations with armed groups:
- Humanitarian negotiators should debrief following each negotiation encounter to assess progress towards achieving the humanitarian objectives that necessitated the negotiations in the first place. Negotiators should assess what approaches worked well, and what could be done differently in future interactions. Is the dialogue converging (e.g. is there agreement on the issues to be negotiated), or diverging?
- Humanitarian negotiators should identify measures of effectiveness for evaluating the humanitarian negotiators. These could include simple measures such as changes in humanitarian access (area/population served) that resulted from the humanitarian negotiations or changes in number of attacks on humanitarian workers that can be attributed to agreements arrived at between humanitarian organizations and armed groups.
________________________
47Source: This case study drawn from: Alex Costy, Managing the Compromise: Humanitarian Negotiations in Angola, 1998-2001 (Geneva: Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, January 2002).
|  |
