|
The purpose of the present survey was to facilitate a stocktaking of views on the professional role of civilian Human Rights Field Officers (HRFOs) of international organisations deployed in conflict and post-conflict situations. Further, it aims to evaluate the perceived training and professional development needs of such field officers.
1. Method Used for this Survey
In order to elicit the views of persons with expertise in relevant areas, a questionnaire with 32 (both open and closed) questions was designed, asking respondents to provide information on five subject areas: the respondents themselves; the profession of the HRFO; training, training materials and other resources; and a register of qualified HRFOs. The questionnaire was sent to some 80 current and former HRFOs of international and regional organisations, headquarters staff supporting human rights field operations as well as specialists in academic and training institutions. The target group included the heads of all OHCHR human rights field presences as well as other persons with relevant expertise, including in OSCE and other non-UN missions. Forty-five persons completed the questionnaire.
2. Results of the Survey
This paper presents only the results of four of the sections of the questionnaire, namely those on the respondents themselves, the role of HRFOs, their training requirements and a register of qualified HRFOs. The results of the evaluation of the section on training materials and other resources have been included in a separate survey on training resources for HRFOs rather than in the present paper.
2.1 The Respondents
Most of the respondents are currently working in a function directly related to a human rights or peace mission of an international or regional organisation, be it as a human rights officer/adviser in the field, as the head of such a mission, or as a desk officer in the headquarters supporting a mission. The majority of those falling into this category are associated with one of the UN agencies, i.e. mainly OHCHR but also agencies such as OCHA or UNDP. Four of the respondents are working in OSCE missions. Respondents carrying out functions not directly related to a field mission include those working in academia, in training institutions or for NGOs who are providing training support to human rights officers and/or carrying out research in relevant fields.
Many of the respondents who are not currently carrying out work directly related to a field mission have previous experience of human rights field work: Of the 45 respondents, 39 have worked in the field at some stage. In total, the answers to this survey reflect the experience of more than 200 years of human rights field work. This experience has been acquired in all regions of the world: the respondents’ field experience added together amounts to, for example, almost 64 years of human rights work in the Africa region and over 59 years in the Europe, North America and Central Asia region.
In a question allowing for multiple answers, 17 respondents described their current work as “work as a Human Rights Field Officer”, 15 as “management of human rights field operations”, eight as “support of Human Rights Field Officers at headquarters level” and three as “giving human rights advice to UN country teams”. Fourteen respondents stated that they were currently involved in the provision of training support to Human Rights Field Officers and thirteen said they were doing academic research. The more specific areas the respondents are, or have been, involved in cover the whole range of activities which human rights field work may entail. Between 28 and 33 respondents stated that they have been involved in capacity-building, monitoring, reporting, analysis and research, advocacy and intervention, engaging with humanitarian and development partners, support to peace processes and transitional justice, and other protection activities. Twenty-four respondents have been involved in the management of missions, 19 in in-mission human rights sensitisation and seven have participated in the UN governance of transitional territories.
2.2 The Profession of the Human Rights Field Officer
The purpose of the questions in this section was to get a picture of the respondents’ views on what the role of a HRFO is or should be, as well as on what is required to fulfil this role. The answers demonstrate that most respondents are reluctant, and/or find it difficult, to define a HRFO’s role in general terms; they take the view that, depending on the specific mission mandate and the concrete situation in the field, it may be appropriate for a HRFO to get involved in a broad range of very diverse activities. Accordingly, they find it difficult to make general statements on the skills, competencies, methodological guidance etc. required to fulfil this role. Not surprisingly, the answers to the questions in this section also show a strong correlation between the respondents’ own roles and the way they prioritise the activities of a HRFO in general: most respondents tended to stress the importance of those functions in which they are themselves involved or of those professional partnerships on which they themselves rely. In sum, no uniform perception of the profession of the HRFO emerges from the respondents’ statements.
2.2.1 Common priorities and trends
Nonetheless, a number of common priorities and trends are clearly discernible from the answers. In the first question, the respondents were asked to define, in general terms, notwithstanding specific mission mandates, the role of a HRFO of an international organisation deployed to a conflict or post-conflict situation. While the definitions provided by the respondents – some of them very detailed, others rather general – differ in several respects, certain key components appear in almost all of them: monitoring the human rights situation, reporting human rights abuses, protecting and promoting human rights. One representative, though quite wide, definition is: “To further the respect, protection and implementation of international human rights standards”. Other respondents see the HRFO as “a key stakeholder in reporting, monitoring, protecting and promoting human rights”, as “a link between international human rights standards and practices, and national realities” or as a facilitator of “sustainable improvement in the human rights situation of the host country”. One respondent provided the following, more detailed, definition: “To promote, protect, and report on human rights throughout the mission area, prioritising activities that protect or provide redress for individuals and local human rights organisations, that provide capacity-building opportunities to assist official and NGO human rights actors to monitor and enforce human rights standards, and that provide timely reports and action recommendations for Head of Mission and HQ about human rights in the Mission area”.
The significance of the above-mentioned key components (monitoring, reporting, protecting, promoting) is also reflected in the answers to the following question, in which the respondents were asked to order - according to the importance they would attach to them - a number of functions of HRFOs (Figure 1). Monitoring, advocacy/intervention and reporting were the three functions which received clearly the highest ratings here. They were followed by capacity-building, other protection activities, support to peace processes and for transitional justice, and analysis/research. At the bottom of this list are engaging with humanitarian and development partners, in-mission human rights sensitisation and participation in UN governance of transitional territories.
| Fig. 1: Importance of Functions |
The general perception of a HRFO’s role as broad and flexible is reflected, for example, in the answers to a question as to whether respondents thought that there are any areas of activity in which HRFOs are engaged which are not appropriate to their role. Here, many respondents answered in the negative, stating that the special role of a HRFO may, depending on the specific situation encountered in the field and the presence of other UN agencies, demand that he or she engage in almost any area of activity. However, other respondents expressed the view that field officers should avoid getting involved in certain activities which may have a counterproductive effect on the protection of human rights, such as, depending on the circumstances, participation in UN governance or initiatives prioritising political objectives of the host government. Finally, a number of respondents stated that HRFOs have to spend too much time on logistical and administrative matters.
2.2.2 Partnerships
A key aspect of a HRFO's work is the maintenance of certain professional partnerships. Therefore, the respondents were asked to order professional partnerships which HRFO's should maintain in the field according to the importance they would attach to them (Figure 2). The partnerships with three entities at the host state level, namely those with national human rights institutions, national civil society and the national government, were rated as particularly crucial. Also seen as important were the partnerships with other components of the mission and with the UN country team. The partnership with the private sector was described as the least significant.
| Fig. 2: Importance of Professional Partnerships |
2.2.3 Skills and Competences
After these questions on the role of a HRFO, several questions addressed the issues of required skills and competencies to fulfil this role as well as existing support in terms of methodological guidance, skills, competencies and resources.
What could be described as ‘applied knowledge of international human rights standards’ was ranked as by far the most important technical skill required to fulfil this role (Figure 3), followed by local knowledge/knowledge of the local language. Also seen as essential were communication/diplomacy/advocacy skills, practical skills, drafting skills, monitoring/research skills and analytical skills. Other skills mentioned include teaching/training skills, knowledge of local law, reporting skills, capacity-building skills, technical assistance skills and project management skills.
| Fig. 3: Important technical skills |
In terms of personal competencies (Figure 4), cultural/political/gender sensitivity and teamwork were described as the two most essential attributes. The respondents also mentioned quite often creativity/initiative, commitment/compassion and leadership. Other personal competencies listed include interpersonal skills, flexibility, judgement, maturity, courage, impartiality, open-mindedness, stress resistance, integrity as well as the abilities “to distance oneself from the individual suffering”, “to see the political and other environment beyond human rights” and “to make sense of abstract legal principles in a practical way, at the same time respecting local culture”.
| Fig. 4: Important personal competencies |
The respondents were asked to indicate three challenges encountered in the field for which they felt they were not appropriately prepared in terms of methodological guidance, skills, competencies or resources. Given the diversity of the missions and the specific conflict or post-conflict situations in which the respondents have worked, it is not surprising that the problems described are far from uniform. Nevertheless, a number of categories of challenges encountered emerge as especially critical from most of the answers and seem to represent recurring themes. First, many respondents described extreme situations, such as the investigation of mass graves or receiving death threats, for which they did not feel appropriately prepared in terms of both expertise (e.g. lack of forensic expertise) as well as coping with the resulting stress. Second, in a more general sense, several respondents felt that they should have received more training preparing them for the mission and complained about the lack of appropriate training materials. Third, a number of respondents stated that they experienced the lack of appropriate human, material and financial resources as a major hindrance to their work. Finally, some respondents indicated that they were not given adequate guidance from the headquarters on how to translate certain policies into practice. The following statement is representative for this last category: “In (country x) I was not given any guidance whatsoever from HQ on how to work with humanitarian agencies and specifically how to encourage them to incorporate a RBA into their work and how to encourage them to include a protection focus in their work. In (country y) I have not been given any help from HQ on how to provide advice on the development of the national plan on human rights education. If anyone in the field or HQ has ever worked on development of such plans it is unknown to me. In all my field experiences, no one from HQ has been able to explain how to incorporate a gender focus in any of the work undertaken at the field level…”. The lack of guidance on how to apply rights-based approaches in the field was mentioned by several respondents.
2.2.4 Methodological guidance
The respondents were then asked to indicate in which of the areas they had ordered according to importance they felt that HRFOs are most supported by methodological guidance (Figure 5) provided by their organisations. The function which had received the highest rating in terms of importance, monitoring, was also seen as the one in which HRFOs are best supported. Another function generally seen as important, reporting, was equally described as well supported. Advocacy/intervention, by contrast, which was ranked as the second most important function of a HRFO, only received five mentions as being well supported. Similarly, analysis/research, which ranked mid-table in terms of importance, received only two mentions as being a well supported function. These results are reinforced by the answers to the converse question as to the areas with the least methodological guidance (Figure 6). Advocacy/intervention tops this list, followed by capacity-building; analysis/research was similarly rated as not well supported. Other protection activities and support to peace processes and for transitional justice were also seen as not well supported functions.
| Fig. 5: Most methodological guidance |
| Fig. 6: Last methodological guidance |
Two questions were designed to find out for which of the professional partnerships HRFOs are best (or least) supported (Figures 7 & 8) in terms of methodological guidance, skills, competencies and resources. Of the three partnerships which were described as particularly crucial, the partnership with the national government was ranked as the best supported, although several respondents actually thought that it belonged to the least supported. The partnership with national human rights institutions was consistently seen as well supported, while the one with national civil society was ranked as the least supported of the particularly significant partnerships. Of the less important partnerships, the one with non-state actors in control of territory was clearly ranked as the one where least support is offered to HRFOs, while most respondents thought that the partnership with the UN country team was well supported.
| Fig. 7: Best supported partnerships |
| Fig. 8: Least supported partnerships |
2.3 Training
2.3.1 General
Just as the role of a HRFO depends to a certain degree on the specifics of the mission and the situation in the field, so do his or her training needs. In addition, the educational background and professional experience of a HRFO will obviously play an important part in this respect. Nonetheless, the answers to the questions dealing with training issues demonstrate – probably even more clearly than those in the section on the role of the HRFO – that the respondents do identify a number of common problems in this field.
First, there seems to be a general lack of training opportunities preparing people for their work relating to human rights field operations. The majority of those respondents who have not themselves worked in the field have not received any training. Of those with field experience, 21 (out of 39) stated that they did not receive any specific training whatsoever before they were deployed to their field missions.
Second, a large number of the respondents who did receive some form of training before deployment expressed varying degrees of dissatisfaction with the training offered. These training modules, normally offered by the organisation responsible for the mission and/or UNITAR, were described as, for example, “three days of meetings in Geneva – unstructured, not a proper induction”, “program was useful in terms of contacts in office, but not content”, “short briefing on the country as well as the role of a human rights officer” or “it wasn’t really a training, it was more of an orientation.” One respondent stated that the training received lasted for half a day before he/she was sent to post-genocide Rwanda.
Third, the respondents were asked which elements of the training received they found most helpful in dealing with the problems encountered in the field. Here, the responses reflect to some degree the challenge, already identified in the previous section, of providing adequate guidance on how to translate certain policies or concepts into practice. Several respondents complained that the training they received was “too general, on standards”. By contrast, the most helpful elements were described as “practical training, e.g. role plays”, “skills training on interviewing, reporting, meeting with hostile officials, prison visits, monitoring a demonstration, applied human rights law to scenarios based on real incidents”, “experience and real stories shared by the trainers” and “giving examples of situations and having colleagues brainstorm on how to identify and address the issues.”
The training and professional support offered during the respective field operations themselves were in general assessed somewhat more positively. Still, eleven respondents stated that they did not receive any training at all during their field missions. Others declared that they attended – in some cases at their own expense – training courses organised by outside agencies or that they had to draw upon the experiences of personal contacts. Training courses attended by several respondents and generally considered helpful include courses on management, investigation techniques, trial monitoring and the rights-based approach to development. Providers of these courses include the UN Staff College in Turin, the OSCE and different NGOs.
2.3.2 Training needs
On a more general level, the respondents were asked to identify the most pressing needs of HRFOs in terms of training. The fundamental challenge in this respect seems to be to find the right balance between keeping field workers up-to-date with theoretical developments in the human rights area and instructing them on how to translate their theoretical knowledge into practice. As one respondent put it: “On the one side, there is a need to be prepared for the field and to learn about the local context. Many Human Rights Field Officers – and indeed managers of HR Field Operations – bring a wealth of academic experience which at time they find hard to translate into practical application and to the realities of a complex UN bureaucratic structure such as a peacekeeping mission. On the other hand, many officers spend a long time in the field and travel from mission to mission. They need to be constantly refreshed about human rights developments and findings.” Accordingly, several respondents stressed the need for training on practical elements of a field officer’s work such as interviewing techniques, reporting skills, PR/advocacy skills and project management skills. Others highlighted more theoretical aspects, in particular the need for refreshing the knowledge of international human rights standards and being updated on new human rights issues such as transitional justice institutions or poverty reduction strategies.
Moreover, it is worth noting that a number of issues which had been raised under previous headings were again mentioned in this training section as deserving special attention, in particular the need for proper guidance on the practical application of rights-based approaches and for training support in terms of stress management. Finally, several respondents expressed concern about the fact that many training courses were “primarily designed for staff in the headquarters” of their organisation; they stressed the importance of ensuring that more junior HRFOs or those based in distant locations are given equal access to information and trainings.
2.3.3 Training methods
Three short questions concluding this section addressed issues revolving around the ideal form of training methods (Figure 9) for HRFOs. Short training courses and workshops of up to one week were ranked as the most useful training method, followed by mentoring and organised mutual training (peer to peer skills transfer). Self-learning courses with the assistance of training material and longer training courses were seen as less helpful. Other training forms suggested include stress counselling/periodic debriefing and “networks or structured/moderated communities of practice”. What periodicity of in-service training could be considered as adequate obviously depends on the type of training offered. However, most respondents generally favoured on-going or bi-annual training modules over training courses offered only once a year. Several respondents suggested combinations, such as on-going general training, combined with bi-annual “formal short courses”. In terms of suitable training venues, local, regional and international locations received almost equal ratings, though the respondents did express a slight preference for regional over local and international venues. Other proposed venues included universities or other educational institutions, specialised learning institutions and locations in countries/regions facing similar challenges as the host state where a HRFO is based.
| Fig. 9: Most useful training methods |
| Fig. 10: Most suitable training venues |
2.4. Register of Qualified Human Rights Field Officers
The respondents were finally asked whether they supported the establishment of a register of qualified international HRFOs for professional recognition purposes (analogous to a register of medical practitioners etc.). Twenty two respondents were supportive or rather supportive of the suggestion, although some of them were sceptical about the details regarding the implementation of such a register. The most often suggested minimum requirements for inclusion of a person in such a register included: years of relevant professional experience, appropriate educational background, field work experience, language skills, personal integrity, commitment and cultural sensitivity.
By contrast, ten respondents were not convinced by the idea. Some of them did not see a need for such a register, found it too presumptuous or were wondering who would be responsible for maintaining it and who would have access to it. Others took the view that it is impossible to formalise required criteria. As one respondent stated: “Various missions require different skills. Some excellent field officers would have never been registered if for example certain formal education would be considered as a factor.” Finally, some respondents explained that such a register would be too costly and that what was needed was an effective personnel management system rather than a roster.
|
