Not just victims: CIVIC’s community-based protection approach and practice

With this jacket I can now approach key stakeholders, to advocate for the rights of women and girls.

CIVIC Community Protection Group member, April 2022.

The above quote from one of our recent meetings with conflict-affected civilians in northeast Nigeria captures the essence of how the Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC) seeks to improve protection of civilians (POC) outcomes following a community-based protection (CBP) approach. This article looks at CIVIC’s practical application of CBP in various contexts, and how it has been strengthening communities’ engagement with armed actors to reduce conflict-related civilian harm.

CIVIC focuses on supporting conflict-affected communities in their quest for protection. ‘Support’ here means that we work with (and not on behalf of) civilians. We follow communities’ own protection priorities and, jointly with them, explore if and how CIVIC can add to their existing agency, leadership and technical capabilities to address these priorities more effectively. We seek to ensure that civilians have the knowledge, skills and access to advocate for their protection needs, including with armed actors.

Phase 1: Determining added value

Prior toengaging with communities along a CBP process, we conduct in-depth research and consult a variety of local and international actors to get their feedback on whether our intended work in an area and our technical toolbox could be of added value in improving POC outcomes. For example, we reach out to and consult relevant local civil society organisations as well as United Nations protection cluster members.

For example, in Ukraine, following an initial needs assessment, we decided to focus on communities that were not directly on the front line. We determined that our technical expertise and tools focusing on preventive protection work are likely to be most valuable and compatible with communities further away.  We also wanted to ensure that we could maintain regular and repeated access to the communities we work with, something that would not be as easy with communities located directly along the front line.

When determining our added value, we employ community engagement officers who know the areas and communities first-hand, often having lived and worked there for years. Their local expertise and access allow us to make a first call on whether the environment is conducive to a CBP approach. CIVIC also applies its own engagement criteria to assess whether state armed actors and their security partners (e.g. allied armed non-state actors) are credible and open to discussing POC issues, for instance looking at actors’ record on avoiding civilian harm and the implementation of international humanitarian law, and their strategic and ethical incentives for POC. For the time being, CIVIC is not directly engaging armed opposition groups (AOGs). However, the CPGs we set up and work with have in the past conducted their own direct POC discussions with AOGs, e.g., the Taliban prior to their takeover of Afghanistan.

Phase 2: Setting up and facilitating Community Protection Groups

If our initial assessments are positive, we then explore if there are other pre-existing community dialogue platforms that could lend themselves to ‘host’ discussions on POC. Whenever possible, we try to build on existing structures, though in most cases CIVIC has ended up setting up new dialogue platforms from scratch because there were no other compatible platforms, or because we deemed pre-existing platforms insufficiently open to allow safe and inclusive dialogue on POC.

We subsequently dedicate a lot of time to identifying suitable community members to become part of these POC-focused dialogue platforms, which we broadly call Community Protection Groups (CPGs). Due diligence is crucial here to ensure that CPGs are representative of the wider community, and its members are well respected and without ulterior motives. We seek to include all the main community segments, ensuring that, for example, women, ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities or internally displaced persons (IDPs) can meaningfully participate. In particularly conservative societies, where women might feel inhibited to speak up in the presence of men, we have been offering additional women-only sub-groups that first meet on their own, and then join the larger CPG meetings equipped with ‘pre-discussed’ issues and recommendations on how to address them. We also proactively reach out to traditional community leaders at an early stage, so that they are not surprised when a new community structure appears in their area. We seek to prevent any misunderstanding on their part and want to avoid any potential instrumentalisation of the CPGs by local powerholders. This is especially relevant when community leaders become CPG members themselves – something we do not encourage in general, but there are contexts, such as Iraq or Afghanistan, where the benefits of their inclusion can outweigh the risks. In these cases we need to be especially vigilant to check that these leaders are not suppressing particular protection issues. For example, would the CPG discuss a protection threat (e.g. being extorted at illegal checkpoints) if the alleged perpetrator is a fellow CPG member and holds a powerful role within the wider community, such as a local authority official? To avoid and prevent suppression of relevant issues, we not only sensitise the CPG to these challenges, but we also ask staff to identify when a well-known or obvious protection issue is not being raised within the CPG. Being cognisant of CBP best practices, we try to ‘use’ traditional community leaders and other local power holders first and foremost as target audiences for CPGs because they can address POC issues via the different roles they play.

Phase 3: Supporting community protection efforts

Self-protection measures

We always seek to build on, strengthen and expand affected communities’ existing self-protection mechanisms. In practice this includes protection risks that communities are tackling exclusively among themselves, i.e. without involving the perpetrators of harm or other armed actors.

Informal early-warning systems and evacuation plans, including for especially vulnerable civilians such as persons with disabilities or the elderly, would be one example. Here, CIVIC might provide a safe space for the community to come together and discuss such mechanisms and offer best practices from other contexts. In some cases we offer limited pinpoint assistance, such as flashlights or mobile phone data, so community members can stay in touch with each other. At the request of CPGs, we have started to provide basic training on how to react when suddenly caught by hostilities and put under fire.

Bringing communities together with armed actors

Self-protection efforts that do not directly engage armed actors can only do so much to reduce threats of harm and attain sustainable POC outcomes. We thus always look for possibilities to bring CPGs together with relevant armed actors to tackle civilian harm and threats at their roots. In preparation for these dialogues, we help communities better analyse their protection risks and subsequently raise them in as persuasive a way as possible.

In scenario-based exercises, CPG members play themselves as well as the armed actor. We seek to provide realistic rehearsals, including military counterarguments to POC that we often hear in our training with armed actors. The goal is to prepare CPGs for their subsequent meetings with armed actors, by staying calm and collected, while also determined and equipped to persuade armed actors to improve their POC behaviour.

Coming in as an external non-governmental organisation with whom both sides (communities and armed actors) have already been working bilaterally can make a real difference in breaking down trust barriers and creating a more open atmosphere for dialogue. Communities have often lost faith in their own state armed forces as their protector, while these armed actors are often very suspicious of communities, especially if the latter belong to the same ethnic group as the groups they are fighting, or if they have suffered heavy losses that they link back to communities providing intelligence to their enemy. Depending on the personalities of both local armed actors and CPG members, CIVIC adapts to the pace both sides are able and willing to go at before feeling comfortable enough to have joint discussions.

Lower-hanging fruit

Before tackling issues directly relating to problematic behaviour by the engaged armed actor, the CPG might decide to start by focusing on less sensitive topics, but where the armed actor might nevertheless be able to take significant action to mitigate civilian harm or threat.

In Afghanistan, one CPG convinced Taliban leaders to allow a telecoms company to establish cellphone service in the district. This came after a two-month period during which the cellphone service had been shut down, severely affecting people’s ability to keep in touch with each other. Obtaining the Taliban district commander’s approval and commitment not to destroy the cellphone network and towers helped over 80% of villagers regain access to mobile phone services. In Iraq, CPGs, together with CIVIC, have helped civilians deal with the bureaucratic processes involved in accessing financial or material assistance for harm suffered as a result of conflict. In Afghanistan we helped CPGs understand and make use of such assistance per Afghan law/Code 91. In Iraq, we have been examining the accessibility of similar assistance under its ‘Compensation Law’, helping CPGs and their wider communities to better navigate the issues involved. In Nigeria, CPGs regularly discuss how the military can better protect community members while out collecting firewood, including through coordinated civilian–military patrols.

More sensitive issues

CPGs also have many priority issues that are extremely sensitive. However, communities normally show no hesitation in bringing them up and demanding solutions from relevant armed actors. A recent good example from Nigeria involves the return and reintegration of former armed opposition group (AOG) members and their families into their original communities. State authorities at times showed limited interest in discussing and planning the return of these civilians with receiving communities, leading some to reject the returnees. CPGs raised the issue with the security forces and local military commanders included relevant CPGs in these reintegration processes, alleviating host communities’ fears while increasing the protection of often very stigmatised individuals. This is an ongoing challenge, especially when some of these returnees do still collaborate with AOGs and are involved in subsequent attacks causing civilian harm.

Prior to the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan, CPGs managed to convince Taliban and former Afghan national army commanders to agree to temporary ceasefires so that civilians could go to the market or seek medical care. Each side only agreed to these ceasefires on the condition that the CPG secured agreement from the other.

Alleged violations by armed actors

Last but not least, we support CPGs to address behaviour that violates applicable norms, for instance by helping CPGs understand their rights under domestic legislation, applicable religious norms, international humanitarian law and international human rights law, and with regard to non-binding frameworks such as the Safe School Declaration. The goal is to enable CPGs to relate problematic behaviour to concrete obligations, and then formulate realistic and specific recommendations.

In Afghanistan, CPGs regularly shared with warring parties how the conduct of hostilities was harming their communities, and used moral, religious, legal and strategic arguments to persuade them to change tactics, such as regarding the use of heavy artillery in populated areas or the location of checkpoints near schools or hospitals. In Nigeria, after meeting with a CPG and hearing allegations of systematic sexual harassment by some of his troops in a specific IDP camp, a local commander issued an order prohibiting soldiers from accessing the camp after 4pm. The CPG subsequently reported a marked reduction in such harassment cases. At a more systemic level, female members of a CPG in Iraq raised concerns that many women that had experienced conflict-related sexual violence were not pursuing the perpetrators because there were no female staff in the authorities’ investigation teams. Women felt that it would be too shameful to discuss incidents with male police officers. The CPG raised this issue with the authorities, and steps were eventually taken to include female staff in investigations.

Once trust between CPGs and the authorities (including armed actors) has been (re)established, it can be possible and useful to expand dialogues and make them accessible to the wider communities that the CPGs represent. In Iraq, CPGs (with CIVIC’s support) have developed and facilitated radio shows discussing POC issues with guests including representatives of the security forces and local authorities. Shows are streamed on the radio stations’ Facebook pages, with listeners able to comment on the discussion and also raise issues directly and in real time.

CPGs as catalysts for social cohesion

The ‘mere’ provision of a safe space for different segments of the community to come together as one group, and the facilitation of a discussion where everyone can raise conflict-related problems, can make a big difference in itself. No matter people’s ethnic or religious background, no matter whether IDP or host community member, sitting together – united by the shared challenges of living in a conflict area and able to share and discuss each other’s grievances – can mitigate long-standing tensions among community segments that otherwise (in cumulative combination with the effects of conflict) might have escalated into further violence and additional conflict drivers. Instead, community members in CPGs often feel that they can jointly do something about their respective challenges, and this can increase the community’s agency to address protection issues in the long term. As one member of the Maiduguri CPG mentioned after one of the first meetings:

We are glad you brought us together. Even amongst ourselves we don’t trust each other, but now we see each other as brothers under this initiative.

In Donetsk in Ukraine, one of the civilians we work with following a CBP approach recently said:

We should have joined together a long time ago. Finally, we can all express ourselves and find out more about our contributions and opportunities.

Challenges

Risk transfer to CPGs

When working with communities under a CBP approach, we must be even more vigilant than otherwise to apply the ‘do no harm’ principle. Community members we work with often take considerable risks to meet us, and then to directly engage with armed actors (with our support) to discuss POC issues. We try to mitigate risks, for example by using our bilateral access and contacts to inform stakeholders about our work with communities, and to address any misunderstandings. Our staff are available for CPGs beyond our regular in-person meetings, and we provide them with means of communication (e.g. mobile phone data) to stay in touch with each other, us and other relevant actors. This is especially important when direct access is a challenge, e.g. because of weather, hostilities, Covid or limited transport availability. When bringing CPG members together we provide for all logistics, such as travel and accommodation, as well as food/drinks, and ensure they don’t miss out on other services, such as assistance deliveries by other actors.

Problematic self-protection mechanisms

There is always a risk of communities adopting self-protection mechanisms that stand in tension with international norms or humanitarian principles, including where cultural customs and values prioritise collective protection outcomes at the expense of individual rights. Another risk is that some community segments or even the entire community associate themselves with one party to the conflict and start engaging in partial activities (with that party) without realising all the risks this incurs. We try to stay cognisant of and monitor such risks and discuss and navigate them in a sensitive manner, without being perceived as imposing external views and norms. That said, it is also important to have clear red lines for us at CIVIC and to be ready to decrease or suspend engagements if these are crossed, including for the safety and security of our staff.

POC link

In our efforts to genuinely adopt a CBP approach, CIVIC devolves power and the prioritisation of topics for discussion to the CPGs. As a result, it is possible that issues without an obvious direct link with POC top the community’s agenda. For instance, the most pressing themes for a CPG might be drunken soldiers speeding in their vehicles, criminal gangs recruiting minors and extorting community members or a lack of rain affecting food security.

While not necessarily within our expertise, we try to see if and how we can support the analysis of these priority issues for the CPGs. In many cases, when digging a little deeper, there is at least a partial link with POC. At times the root causes of these issues are directly linked to an armed actor’s failure to meet their protection obligations. By highlighting and explaining these links we can help the CPG develop more concrete recommendations and thus become a more effective protection advocate when subsequently engaging relevant armed actors.

For example, an increase in a community’s youth joining criminal gangs might be linked to the state armed forces’ long-term occupation of schools and the suspension of regular educational activities, rendering youth more susceptible to recruitment. Increasing hunger might not be a result simply of a lack of rain. A deeper analysis might reveal that reduced food security could also relate to an armed actor’s failure to clear fields of mines or unexploded ordnance, or limited efforts to provide patrols so that farmers can more safely access crops located in dangerous areas.

That said, there might always be priority issues for CPGs, the root causes of which lie outside CIVIC’s expertise and where we have limited or no technical expertise to offer. In such cases, we either try to bring other actors or organisations into a CPG meeting to provide support (e.g. offer training), or we try to refer the group to another relevant and credible organisation, such as in the case of missing persons or detention-related matters. Not raising false expectations and staying honest about where we have added value and where we have not is crucial. As this article shows, there is a lot we can do to help affected communities become stronger agents of their own protection, and when and where we reach our limits, we look to other organisations to complement and support us and the CPGs.

Marc Linning is Senior Protection Advisor at the Center for Civilians in Conflict.