Too Poor for Peace?: Global Poverty, Conflict, and Security in the 21st Century

Chapter 9: Operating in Insecure Environments

128 The world must advance the causes of security, development and human rights together, otherwise none will succeed. Humanity will not enjoy security without development, it will not enjoy development without security, and it will not enjoy either without respect for human rights. . . . The world needs strong and capable States, effective partnerships with civil society and the private sector, and agile and effective regional and global inter-governmental institutions to mobilize and coordinate collective action. —United Nations, In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All1 CONDITIONS OF SEVERE political, economic, and physical insecurity, often underpinned by weak governance and high levels of poverty and inequality, continue to blight the lives of millions of people around the world. The poor are particularly vulnerable to the ravages and costs of conflict , natural and economic disasters, repression, corruption, market distortions and externalities, weak legal and regulatory frameworks, and inadequate public institutions.2 Yet operating in insecure environments is not only a challenge for lowincome households and communities. It is increasingly a challenge for donor agencies; for companies, including both indigenous enterprises and foreign Operating in Insecure Environments JANE NELSON 9 09-1375-3 ch9 3/30/07 1:48 PM Page 128 investors; and for nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), including both major humanitarian agencies and local community-based groups. These different types of organizations operate in insecure environments for a wide variety of reasons—from humanitarian relief, to peace building and development, to the profit motivations of business, such as developing new markets or sourcing raw materials and manufactured products. The ability of these different organizations to influence conditions in insecure environments for good or bad also varies widely. Such influence depends on factors such as their motivations and purpose; their size; their operating principles, standards, and practices; their flexibility to adapt or shut down operations; their sources of legitimacy and funding; the level and nature of the governance failures they face; and the dynamic interaction between them and other actors, both local and external. Even within the private sector, there will be obvious differences between industries. Large “footprint’ companies—such as energy, mining, agribusiness , infrastructure, and heavy manufacturing, for example—have markedly different risks, responsibilities, and capabilities compared with companies operating in professional and financial services, tourism, or the marketing and distribution of consumer goods. Likewise, operational or service delivery NGOs will differ from advocacy NGOs, and donor agencies with peacekeeping or peace-building mandates from those with an economic development or human rights mandate—although there are increasing overlaps among these different approaches, and a number of NGOs and donors address the full spectrum of mandates. Despite their differences, donor agencies, companies, and NGOs all face a similar set of broad challenges and opportunities if they aim to operate in insecure environments in a manner that is not only responsible and accountable but also progressive. This chapter focuses on these broad challenges and opportunities. It reviews current trends; profiles some good practices, especially in the area of collective action; and makes recommendations to organizations operating in such environments. There is clearly no one-size-fits-all solution for either analyzing or implementing the most appropriate and effective approaches. This is especially the case given the markedly different political, economic, cultural, and environmental conditions and traditions in various insecure environments, in addition to the organizational differences briefly outlined above. In particular, the level and type of governance gaps and failures in any particular situation will have a major influence on determining the most Operating in Insecure Environments 129 09-1375-3 ch9 3/30/07 1:48 PM Page 129 appropriate and effective response from companies and NGOs—be they indigenous or foreign, public or private. It goes without saying that insecurity due to governments that are authoritarian, repressive, and corrupt will usually be more difficult to address than situations where governments simply lack the institutional and administrative capacity to ensure the security of their citizens . This is not to suggest that the latter situations are easy to resolve, but they are usually more amenable to engagement and support from other actors. There will also be obvious differences in approach based on: —the source or underlying cause of insecurity, for example, preventing or responding to natural disaster versus conflict, or to conflict driven by ideology or identity issues versus conflict driven by access to economic and natural resources; —the extent or severity of insecurity, for example, a situation...