ATHA Thematic Brief CIMIC.pdf

Interaction between civilian and military actors in complex political emergencies (CPE) continues to warrant close examination, as the scope and implications of these relationships are significantly impacting contemporary humanitarian operations. Acknowledging that such involvement between military and humanitarian bodies has been widely questioned and critiqued, this paper takes no position as to the ideal nature of the relationship; it adopts as its base for discussion situations in which the relationship is already in place.

In recent years, humanitarian organizations have been criticized for the ad hoc style of interaction, as well as over the highly fragmented nature of this sector. There are many explanations for this lack of structure and coordination, a broad discussion of which is beyond the scope of this brief. However, this failure to collaborate in planning has implications for civil-military coordination (CIMIC). Policies, methods and tools to develop collaboration of an appropriate nature and character between humanitarian bodies dealing with military partnerships are vital for the success of any civil-military undertaking.

It is important to note that in CPEs, more than one type of both military and humanitarian actors are likely to be present, and so coordination may entail establishing different protocols given the nature of each military actor with which humanitarian actors are involved.

In such circumstances, it is crucial to develop a coordinated approach amongst humanitarian agencies in the field, establishing regulatory principles or frameworks governing the relationship between these organizations and military units. This type of coordination is critical in order to: (a) maintain humanitarian neutrality; (b) clarify context-based responsibilities of these two sets of actors and ensure prioritization of urgent services; (c) ultimately facilitate transfer of responsibility away from the military, as such initiatives typically are shorter in scope and time frame than that of humanitarian operations; and (d) where possible, avoid increasing security presence in already militarized environments.

While challenges exist to such coordination, including the fragmented character of humanitarianism and the varying agency structures and mandates, some recommendations can be put forth to facilitate a procedural framework for engaging with military actors in the field. In such environments, it is critical to assert the leadership of humanitarian agencies, which are often best situated to provide a nuanced understanding of context. In addition, it is equally important to establish a humanitarian coordinating body which engages in the mapping of relevant actors and their responsibilities; establish a deliberative forum between humanitarian agencies aimed at fostering a policy framework; clearly delineate military and humanitarian action; formulate mechanisms which ensure policies are upheld, including monitoring events; appreciate the different roles of humanitarian versus military bodies, and share information where agreed upon; and recognize the nature and scope of services which can realistically be provided and as such, prioritized. It should be noted that, given the presence of multiple military actors, it may be necessary to cater protocols to each military body present, and that context should dictate how these recommendations are put in place.