Virtual Diplomacy Homepage >> Virtual Diplomacy Publications >> Good Practices: Information Sharing in Complex Emergencies

Released Online 5 March 2002 CONTENTS Introduction Background Key Points Conclusion Annex A: Definitions Annex B: Conference Agenda Annex C: Biographies Endnotes About the Report

 

GOOD PRACTICES: INFORMATION SHARING IN COMPLEX EMERGENCIES
Report from a Roundtable on Humanitarian-Military Sharing
2001 Worldwide Civil Affairs Conference

Introduction

Building on its efforts to improve information sharing in complex emergencies ¹, the United States Institute of Peace's Virtual Diplomacy Initiative (VDI) cosponsored the 2001 Worldwide Civil Affairs Conference, held in New York on June 28-30, 2001, with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict. Entitled Unity of Effort: Defining Roles and Finding Opportunities for Collaboration, the conference examined the role of civil affairs within the military and within the context of complex emergencies (see agenda in annex B). The 325 conference attendees included members of civil affairs units from Australia, Britain, Canada, France, and Georgia; officials from the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development; and staff from UN humanitarian relief agencies and nongovernmental relief organizations.

VDI organized a conference session entitled "Good Practices: Information Sharing in Complex Emergencies," whose objective was to explore the role of information sharing between humanitarian and military actors in complex emergencies. The session consisted of a roundtable discussion among six humanitarian relief experts, many associated with international humanitarian agencies, and a civil affairs officer (their biographies are attached in annex C). It aimed to deepen the understanding of the realities and conditions of collaboration between civilian and military entities and to offer specific areas for sharing information among them that can contribute to the objectives of both entities. It began with a description of realities on the ground from the perspective of humanitarian agencies. This description entailed a list of existing cultural, physical, logistical, and operational constraints to sharing information between humanitarian organizations and militaries in the field.

Using physical security as an issue of fundamental, mutual concern, the humanitarian relief experts each offered specific points on information sharing as the best means to safeguard their respective organizations as well as the local population, in terms of general conditions of security, security for aid distributions, and so forth. The discussants spoke as individuals on the basis of their personal experience, not on behalf of their organizations. After their initial statements, the participants debated various ways in which information sharing between humanitarian and civil affairs actors could positively affect security. The civil affairs officer then responded to the comments and suggestions offered by the humanitarian relief experts. The session concluded after a broader discussion with members of the conference audience.

In April 2000 -- a year earlier than the Worldwide Civil Affairs Conference in New York City -- VDI and the 353rd Civil Affairs Command sponsored a conference entitled Taking It to the Next Level: Civilian Military Cooperation in Complex Emergencies. The 2000 conference helped set a realistic tone for cooperation between humanitarian and military entities. At the same time, it outlined specific steps necessary to move information sharing in complex emergencies forward.

Responding to recommendations from the conference, VDI launched a new project entitled Good Practices: Information Sharing in Complex Emergencies to investigate and promote good information-sharing practices among nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and ultimately with militaries during field operations. The roundtable session at the 2001 Worldwide Civil Affairs Conference contributed to the Good Practices Project by addressing issues that challenge the doctrine and practices of civil affairs forces in the field. Present in many complex emergencies, civil affairs units are the military's natural liaison to its humanitarian counterpart. Identifying how information can be shared between the two is an important component of how information should be shared among all entities, the goal of the Good Practices Project.

The roundtable session was designed to maximize discussion among the panelists. This report attempts to capture the salient points brought out by the moderator, the panelists, and the audience, with the purpose of increasing understanding and improving humanitarian-military information sharing in complex emergencies.

Back to Top

Background

As alluded to above, the lack of security in zones of conflict where complex emergencies occur represents a major threat to both military and civilian humanitarian relief operations. Just as force protection has become a point of departure for U.S. troops serving abroad, relief organizations have recognized the centrality of physical and operational security for their field staff. Security during complex emergencies, in particular, necessitates information sharing between field-based humanitarian and military organizations.

Several factors affect the security situation. Complex emergencies by definition entail civil strife and high levels of violence. Landmines, unexploded ordnance, and small arms are prevalent in communities and cities where humanitarian agencies operate. Because the number of NGOs operating in complex emergencies has steadily increased over the past decade, the probability of incidents involving relief workers has also increased. Today, there are more casualties among humanitarian relief workers than there are among peacekeepers in complex emergencies. In 1998, seventeen humanitarian aid workers with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees alone were killed, as opposed to eight peacekeepers. Moreover, localized insecurity prevents relief organizations from reaching vulnerable populations with critical assistance.

Fundamental to the security issue during complex emergencies is that the danger of violence to civilians, including local populations as well as humanitarian organizations, is the rationale for the military's presence. From the perspective of both the humanitarian relief groups and the military, security is the foundation on which development and peace must be built. This common concern for security and desire for stability presumably creates a natural incentive for communication and information sharing between civilian relief agencies and military entities. Information sharing on security issues conceivably includes locations of landmines and unexploded ordnance, direction and size of population movements, hostile activities or violence, inaccessible areas around vulnerable populations, incident and emergency situation reports, evacuation planning, and other kinds of events that potentially affect planning and delivery of relief. Thus, as an important issue in and of itself and as a point of departure for improving humanitarian-military relations, security is the sine qua non for both communities.

Back to Top

Key Points

The following are the primary points that emerged from the Good Practices roundtable:

1. Security conditions in complex emergencies inextricably link humanitarian and military entities in a bond of mutual dependence and reliance, which in turn requires information sharing across organizational lines.

• Because the need for security on all levels is urgent, sharing information about security issues presumably constitutes a common ground of interest. Such mutual interest could lead the military and humanitarian communities to cooperate more effectively in the field.
  
  
• Humanitarian relief agencies are inherently concerned with the safety of the population they are serving. If, however, conditions or parties to the conflict physically threaten relief workers, aid agencies will be unable to reach the affected populations to deliver assistance.
  
  
• The humanitarian community has become increasingly conscious of the physical security risks to its staff because the number of relief workers killed in complex emergencies is on the rise and today outnumbers those of military personnel.
  
  
• Security and insecurity are relative. A situation that might be a security concern for the military may not be one for the International Committee of the Red Cross or for a local organization. Interpreting the situation and transmitting an assessment about the nature and perception of threats and vulnerabilities specifically to relief organizations is an important role that civil affairs personnel can perform in support of humanitarian security.
  
  
• Civil affairs units are uniquely positioned to recommend to the military that its rules of engagement should be written to include protection of the civilian international community and that all military personnel implementing these rules of engagement understand and respect that protection.
  
  

2. Information sharing between humanitarian relief and military organizations requires that each entity clearly communicates its set of activities, assets, and limitations in order to build credibility, manage expectations, and build good, dependable relationships across organizational lines.

• Some in the humanitarian community want to limit the role of the military in complex emergencies so that all relief activities are civilian led and no aid effort is conducted without at least a civilian oversight.
  
  
• Most organizations within the humanitarian community are recognizing the inherent interrelatedness of military and relief actions in the field. Therefore, improving mutual consultation and information sharing is a necessary step to establishing good working relationships, constructive dialogue, and cooperation. With this in mind, several humanitarian organizations are developing internal policies that define their relationship with the military under various conditions that still preserve their impartiality.
  
  
• The principles of impartiality and neutrality to which many relief organizations subscribe, ensure that their agencies do not take sides in the politics of the conflict. Separation from the politics that is fueling the conflict allows them to remain in a country embroiled in violence and minister to its threatened civilian population. Maintaining a principle of political neutrality may not prevent cooperation with an intervening military, however, whose mandate, in part, is often to ensure the safe conduct of humanitarian relief operations.
  
  
• The potential threat of jeopardizing humanitarian neutrality limits some relief organizations' willingness to institutionalize information sharing, conduct joint civil-military training, exchange staff, co-locate offices, or even share information in a mutual coordination structure to which the military has access.
  
  
• Limitations on sharing information exist in both civilian and military communities. The military cannot disclose classified information; humanitarian relief organizations are reluctant to share information that may look like "intelligence" about the conflict and thus threaten the security of their staff and operations in the field.
  
  
• Information from the military that derives from military expertise, such as the location of unexploded ordnance, the integrity of roads and bridges, or best locations for radio repeaters is the most valuable to the humanitarian community. Civil affairs personnel can filter classified from unclassified and "intelligence" from logistical information and deliver appropriately useful information to field-based relief organizations.
  
  
• Two factors determine the level of cooperation and information sharing between entities in the field: personal relationships and the common concerns about safety -- in the parlance of relief workers, "beer and fear" factors. Therefore, immediately establishing civil affairs liaisons between the military and humanitarian communities during the emergency phase facilitates these "bonding" factors. Thereafter, relationships -- or the lack of them -- become institutionalized.
  
  
• To develop the humanitarian-military relationship, civil affairs personnel must establish credibility and legitimacy in both the military and the humanitarian communities, each of which may consider civil affairs an alien entity. They must immediately acquaint themselves with the principal humanitarian players.
  
  
• The role of civil affairs personnel as civil-military liaisons is no longer a support function; it is an operational necessity. In particular, civil affairs officers should act as the liaison between the force commander and the humanitarian community. This requires direct access to the commander in order to relate expeditiously the concerns and requests of the humanitarian community to the leadership, on the one hand, and to caution the commander on humanitarian implications of military operations, on the other. The force commander may request a response from the humanitarian community on military issues or actions in question. Civil affairs should have the credibility to elicit and deliver that response from the humanitarian community to the force commander.
  
  
• In relation to the humanitarian community, a crucial task of the civil affairs officer is to make clear at the outset what the capabilities of the military and civil affairs are and what they are not, what resources they have, and how and when they will make them available to this community. Civil affairs personnel need to be transparent in their function, with no hidden agendas.
  
  
• Finally, engaging the civil affairs forces in the current discussion among NGOs on impartiality and neutrality at the policy level is important to developing an effective humanitarian-military relationship.
  
  

3. Information sharing is only as valuable as the information shared. The quality and timeliness of well-formulated data can be crucial for the success of both the humanitarian and military operations.

• The common critical element between the C4I (command, communication, control, computers, and intelligence) structure of the military community and what might be called the C4A (cooperation, coordination, consensus, communication, and assessment) structure of the humanitarian community is communication.
  
  
• Rather than trying to coordinate planning before deployment, sharing information collected in the field should help diverse entities -- including local populations -- to formulate or adjust plans according to the reality on the ground. Good field-based information-sharing practices enhance the flexibility of actors in managing dynamic operations.
  
  
• Current humanitarian field information centers are relatively informal, with few preestablished standards for communications or common technology and limited methodologies or coordination structures that help communication.
  
  
• A common information-sharing framework will help all entities compare, contrast, reconcile, and evaluate information for decision making. Such a framework -- proposed by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) -- called SHARE (structured humanitarian assistance reporting), entails the following three components:
  1. Geo-referenced information indicating specific locations where the data were collected in the form of a code, such as latitude/longitude.
     
     
  2. The date of the information, particularly important in fast-moving emergencies where information validity is relative to time.
     
     
  3. The source of the information for evaluation of credibility as well as the measurement standards and indicators used.

Use of this proposed framework would enhance coordination by establishing a common knowledge base, provide accountability through the sharing of information sources, and serve geographic information systems, which present information in more usable formats, particularly as maps.

• A physical and/or virtual information-sharing center allows users access to needed information, regardless of time and schedules. This enhances information sharing because it responds to the criticism that the traditional form of sharing information-coordination meetings -- often takes precious time and offers limited benefits.
  
  
• Real-time communication -- usually via a radio link -- is an important element of information sharing. Establishing a "911" function, which a humanitarian agency could use to alert the military to a security incident, would provide a reassuring backstop for the civilian community as it delivers relief in hostile environs.
  
  
• As part of their liaison duties, civil affairs personnel can provide a needed interpretive function between humanitarian and military entities by sorting, ordering, and establishing the relative value of information that should be shared between the various entities in a complex emergency.
  
  
• The information that civil affairs forces provide in an information-sharing structure needs to be relevant to the humanitarian community. Improving civil affairs capacities to use geographical information system (GIS) applications would contribute enormously to this effort.

4. The location and networking capacity of the military information-sharing function is critical to effective coordination.

• A one-stop shop, drop-in model for civil-military cooperation encourages open communication and information sharing between the humanitarian and local communities and the military community. Examples include civil military cooperation centers (CIMICs), civil-military operations center (CMOCs), and humanitarian (community) information centers (HCICs and HICs).
  
  
• Other options besides physical sites include virtual information sharing such as intranets, web sites, listservs, and electronic bulletin boards.
  
  
• Military-organized CIMICs or CMOCs must be readily available to the humanitarian community, that is, they should be located "outside the wire" of a military compound. Information-sharing structures residing within the protective confines of military structures essentially tell the humanitarian community "do not disturb."
  
  
• The CIMICs and CMOCs must also have immediate access to the force commander, military logistics, and operations. Therefore, these structures should be adjacent to, but not enclosed by, the military.
  
  
• Civilian-organized HCICs or HICs, for their part, should include a military link, such as CIMIC/CMOC or civil affairs representatives, in order to make information sharing as easy as possible between the two communities.
  
  
• Important to the effectiveness of the civil affairs liaison function is its ability to interrelate with the humanitarian community on neutral ground. To enable this, generalized force protection regulations, such as restricted movements or carrying weapons into humanitarian compounds and information centers, should be waived for civil affairs personnel.

Back to Top

Conclusion

The Good Practices roundtable session highlighted both the challenges and the opportunities in sharing information across the civil-military divide and the important liaison role the civil affairs forces play in the process. Rapid developments in technology, common incentives to share information on such issues as security, and the bridge-building efforts by both humanitarian and military communities are moving information sharing in complex emergencies to new levels. Several recommendations that resulted from the conference demonstrate this interest and commitment:

• Establish CIMIC/CMOCs "outside the wire."
  
  
• Link the CIMIC/CMOCs with humanitarian information centers, applying the "one-stop shopping" concept.
  
  
• Encourage the institutionalization of briefings on mandate, roles, functions, resources, transitions, rotations, and so on by civil affairs personnel to humanitarian organizations and to commanders on humanitarian activities and concerns.
  
  
• Support the SHARE approach for information exchange between all military and humanitarian entities.

The 2000 Taking It to the Next Level conference began an important dialogue between humanitarian representatives and civil affairs personnel that continued through the roundtable at the Worldwide Civil Affairs Conference. The Good Practices Project will take the notion of creating normative processes in information sharing a step further by building on these efforts.

Back to Top

Annex A

DEFINITIONS

Civil Affairs are the designated active and reserve component forces and units organized, trained, and equipped specifically to establish, maintain, influence, or exploit relations between military forces, government, and nongovernment civilian organizations and authorities and the civilian populace in a friendly, neutral, or hostile area of operations with the goal of facilitating military operations and achieving U.S. objectives. Civil-military operations may include performance by military forces of activities and functions normally the responsibility of local, regional, or national government. These activities may occur before, during, or after other military actions and, if directed, in the absence of other military operations.²

Civil Affairs Activities "performed or supported by civil affairs forces that (1) embrace the relationship between military forces and civil authorities in areas where military forces are present; and (2) involve the application of civil affairs functional specialty skills, in areas normally the responsibility of civil government, to enhance the conduct of civil-military operations."³

Complex Emergency is commonly understood to entail a breakdown in political, economic, and physical order. It generally includes violent conflict, large-scale population displacement, economic disintegration, life-threatening hunger and/or disease, human rights violations, and at least partial political and social collapse. Such conditions overwhelm existing internal capacity to respond and require external assistance.⁴

CIMIC (Civil Military Cooperation Center) is the NATO term for a coordination mechanism between civilian and military entities, often a center that serves as a liaison between humanitarian, international, and local entities and the military.

CMOC (Civil Military Operations Center) "is an operations center formed from CA [civil affairs] assets and it serves as the primary interface between the U.S. armed forces and the local population, humanitarian organizations, NGOs, IOs [international organizations], the UN, multinational forces, and other agencies of the U.S. government."⁵ The term "CMOC" is specifically a U.S. military term and is not used among other military units. It may or may not be associated with humanitarian coordination centers.

Force Commander is the senior military officer in theater in command of the forces. In a unified command structure, a single theater force commander, as well as individual national or corps force commanders, preside.

Force Protection is the maintenance of the security and health of all military personnel. It is the number one priority in U.S. military operations. Force protection standards are established by the force commander. They apply to all military personnel and include such measures as wearing protective gear, restricting movement in specific areas, requiring all travel in pairs and/or with two vehicles, and maintaining specific weapons requirements.

GIS (Geographic Information Systems) is "an organized collection of computer hardware, software, geographic data, and personnel designed to efficiently capture, store, update, manipulate, analyze, and display all forms of geographically referenced information."⁶ In complex emergencies, GIS has become an extremely useful tool whereby organizations code the geographic location of structures, activities, conditions, populations, and so on, which are then translated into maps and maneuverable databases.

Humanitarian Agency/Organization is a group that provides or supports relief assistance to mortally endangered populations. Variations in organizational type include nongovernmental organizations, UN agencies, Red Cross organizations, international organizations, and some elements of donor agencies. Humanitarian organizations may or may not also provide development activities or funds or other forms of aid.

Security in the context of a complex emergency, can be thought of as the freedom from physical danger, including a sense of relative safety and the ability to move and transit freely without fear of physical harm. Another aspect of security commonly associated with complex emergencies the relatively nonviolent conduct of society. The existence of security does not necessarily mean that basic human or humanitarian rights are being protected.

Back to Top

Annex B

CONFERENCE AGENDA

Thursday, June 28

1000-2200 - Conference Registration

1830-1930 - Hosted Social

Friday, June 29

0745-0800 - Administrative Announcements and Welcoming Remarks

0800-0815 - Opening Remarks by the Conference Co-Sponsors

• Mr. Frank L. Jones, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations Policy and Support
• Dr. Richard H. Solomon, President, United States Institute of Peace

0815-0900 - Keynote Address

• Mr. Andrew Natsios, Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development

0900-0930 - Break

0930-1130 - Policy Panel

The panel will review the U.S. military's civil affairs role in support of force commanders. The objective of the panel is to determine if current civil affairs policy set forth by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and within the individual military departments is consistent with the needs of the U.S. armed services.

Moderator

• Maj. Gen. Herbert L. Buz Altshuler, Commanding General, U.S. Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command

Panelists

• Amb. Robert W. "Bill" Farrand, former Supervisor of Brcko and Deputy High Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1997-2000)
• Lt. Gen. E.R. Bedard, Deputy Commandant for Plans, Policies, and Operations, U.S. Marine Corps
• Maj. Gen. Philip R. Kensinger, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, U.S. Army
• Maj. Gen. Geoffrey C. Lambert, Director, Center for Operations, Plans and Policy, U.S. Special Operations Command

1130-1330 - Civil Affairs Association Lunch

1330-1530 - U.S. Government Agency Panel

The panel will define information sharing and teamwork processes that could be established or improved between the military and other U.S. government agencies so that coordination and execution of responsibilities during contingencies or complex emergencies are facilitated.

 Moderator

• Mr. James Kunder, Institute for Defense Analysis

Panelists

• Brig. Gen. Michael Beasley, Deputy Commander, U.S. Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command and U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School
• Mr. William Garvelink, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Humanitarian Response, U.S. Agency for International Development
• Maj. Gen. (Retired) William L. Nash, Senior Fellow and Director, Center for Preventive Action, Council on Foreign Relations
• Dr. James Schear, Director of Research, Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University

1530-1600 - Break

1600-1700 - Authors Panel Selected from the Conference Call for Papers

The authors will present the key aspects of their papers, drawn from their academic research and field experiences, to explore critically a variety of topics to include a comprehensive approach to civil-military coordination, Civil Military Operations at the operational level, cooperation during peacetime engagements, and other challenges to military and civil operations.

Moderator

• Ms. Melinda Hofstetter, Center for Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance, Tulane University

Panelists

• Lt. Col. Roland de Marcellus, Commander, 489th Civil Affairs Battalion
• Mr. Bradd Hayes, Professor, Naval War College
• Lt. Col. Christopher Holshek, Civil Information Officer, 304th Civil Affairs Brigade
• Cmdr. Nick Spence, Joint Doctrine and Concepts Center, Royal Navy

Saturday, June 30

0745-0800 - Administrative Announcements

0800-1000 - Good Practices: Information Sharing in Complex Emergencies Panel

Given that security is a common and fundamental concern to both humanitarian and military entities, the panel will: 1) establish a foundation of understanding of the realities and conditions of civilian-military cooperation and 2) offer specific recommendations for information sharing between humanitarian entities and military units that contribute to security in complex emergencies and operations other than war.

Moderator

• Dr. Kimberly Maynard, Good Practices Project Manager for the Virtual Diplomacy Initiative, United States Institute of Peace
• Commentator - Col. Mike Hess, Deputy Commander, 353rd Civil Affairs Command

Panelists

• Mr. George Devendorf, Mercy Corps International
• Mr. John Fawcett
• Mr. Dennis King, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
• Col. Robert Macpherson, USMC, Retired, Director, CARE International Protection and Security Group
• Ms. Anita Menghetti, Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, U.S. Agency for International Development

1000-1030 - Break

1030-1130 - Good Practices: Using Technologies for Information Sharing

• Speaker Lt. Col. Donna Boltz, Chief of Contingency Operations in the Office of Peacekeeping, Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). Formerly a Jennings Randolph senior fellow at the United States Institute of Peace

1130-1330 - Civil Affairs Association Lunch

• Speaker Maj. Gen. William G. Boykin, Commanding General, U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School

1330-1530 - Doctrine and Training Panel

The panel will examine the consistency between civil affairs doctrine and training regimes and the role of civil affairs in war and contingencies. It will address whether the current training program for CA soldiers and Marines is adequate to meet requirements. It will also consider whether there are basic CA skills that all personnel should receive and whether the CA functional specialties are still relevant. Lastly, the panel will examine the state of civil affairs doctrine in the Army and Marine Corps and any areas requiring attention. In this regard, it will comment on whether training and doctrine can be improved by sharing doctrine with non-DoD entities and by training with NGOs/IOs on a frequent basis.

Moderator

• Col. Gary Anderson, USMC, Retired, Director of the Center for Emerging Threats and Opportunities (CETO)

Panelists

• Maj. Gen. William Boykin, Commanding General, U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School
• Brig. Gen. Richard Natonski, Director, Strategy and Plans Division, U.S. Marine Corps
• Col. Christopher Baggott, Chief of the Strategy Division, J-5, Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
• Col. Mark Warner, Director, Joint and Army Doctrine Directorate, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command

1530-1600 - Break

1600-1700 - Conference Wrap-up

• Mr. Frank Jones, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Special Operations Policy and Support
• Dr. Sheryl Brown, Co-Director, Virtual Diplomacy Initiative, United States Institute of Peace
• Ms. Margarita Studemeister, Co-Director, Virtual Diplomacy Initiative, United States Institute of Peace

Back to Top

Annex C

BIOGRAPHIES

George Devendorf is the director of emergency operations for Mercy Corps International. He is responsible for coordinating and supporting the agency's disaster response efforts worldwide. Before he joined Mercy Corps, Devendorf worked with a variety of relief and refugee assistance organizations, including the USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (Kosovo and Macedonia), the International Council of Voluntary Agencies (Bosnia and Herzegovina), InterAction (Washington, D.C.), the International Rescue Committee (Sudan), the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (Sudan), and the International Organization for Migration (Philippines). He currently manages the four-person global emergency operations (GEO) team that plays a lead role in the agency's disaster preparedness, assessment, and response efforts.

Col. Michael Hess (retired) was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in Armor on June 9, 1971. His last active duty tour was with the 353rd Civil Affairs Command, and on leaving active service in 1984, he continued to serve in the 353rd as a reserve officer. Hess was activated during Desert Storm/Shield. At the end of the war, when the Kurds revolted, he was sent to Turkey and later to Iraq to participate in Operation Provide Comfort to aid in the Kurdish relief effort. He was mobilized for Operation Joint Endeavor to help implement the Dayton Peace Accord in Bosnia. There, he served as the CIMIC operations officer, responsible for assisting in the rebuilding of the infrastructure. As the special assistant to the chief of staff, Office of the High Representative, he assisted in the transition of the Sarajevo suburbs, the establishment of freedom of movement, and the holding of the first elections in Bosnia. In April 1999 Hess led the planning team that wrote the civil-military portion of the Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) plan for the intervention in Kosovo. Hess deployed to Kosovo in June 1999, where he was chief of the Mission Liaison Branch at Headquarters Kosovo Force. In this capacity he integrated civil-military cooperation plans, operations, guidance, and directions with the UN Interim Administration in Kosovo, seeking to ensure unity of effort. At the time of this conference, Hess was the deputy commander of the 353rd Civil Affairs Command. He has since retired.

Dennis King is currently working for the UN Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) as the coordinator for the Symposium on Best Practices in Humanitarian Intervention, to be held in February 2002. Previously, he was the information systems officer for UNICEF's Office of Emergency Programs and worked with OCHA's ReliefWeb project from 1996 to 1999. He is a member of the original design team of ReliefWeb, which was officially launched in October 1996. Before he joined the United Nations, King worked for twelve years in USAID/OFDA, and headed that office's Information Support Unit. He also served as information officer on USAID/ OFDA Disaster Assistance Response Teams sent to Angola, Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, Mozambique, and Zaire.

Bob Macpherson is assistant director, CARE USA Emergency Group, having joined in 1998 after four years as a consultant to CARE, specializing in emergency training and operation start-up and management. In his current role, he organizes and implements emergency response activities in humanitarian crisis situations and coordinates all of CARE's landmine awareness and demining programs worldwide. Since 1994, Macpherson has helped CARE respond to emergencies in Albania, Bosnia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kosovo, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, and Timor. A retired U.S. Marine, he served as deputy director for civil-military operations for the UN operation Restore Hope in Somalia, where he set priorities for and coordinated multinational relief efforts. After completing active service with the Marines, he founded Enable, a humanitarian relief organization dedicated to assisting the survivors of landmines and war. Wounded in Vietnam, Macpherson is the recipient of the Presidential Legion of Merit and four commendations for valor.

Kimberly A. Maynard has worked with USAID, UN agencies, nongovernmental organizations, the Red Cross, and private foundations in such complex emergencies as Bosnia, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea, Rwanda, Somalia, and Tajikistan. She headed the U.S. government's humanitarian response to the Kosovo crisis in both Macedonia and Kosovo. She has worked closely with the U.S. military and peacekeeping missions throughout many emergencies and is currently consulting, conducting research, and managing the Good Practices Project at the United States Institute of Peace. Maynard is the author of several publications, including Healing Communities in Conflict: International Assistance in Complex Emergencies (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999).

Anita Menghetti is NGO/IO/donor coordinator for the U.S. Agency for International Development's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA). She is responsible for ensuring overall consistency in OFDA's policy with regard to NGOs and serves as liaison between OFDA and the UN and other IOs. Previously, she worked for the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations as the humanitarian planning officer. From 1987 to 1994 she worked for several NGOs in refugee resettlement, policy, and programming for targeted populations.

Back to Top

Endnotes

1. For a list of definitions used in this report, see annex A.

2. Department of the Army, Civil Affairs Operations, FM 41-10 Manual (Washington: Headquarters, Department of the Army, February 2000), p. 1-1.

3. Department of the Army, Civil Affairs Operations, Glossary-3.

4. Kimberly A. Maynard, Healing Communities in Conflict: International Assistance in Complex Emergencies (New York, Columbia University Press, 1999), p. xi.

5. Department of the Army, Civil Affairs Operations, p. H-1.

6. http://gisdasc.kgs.ukans.edu/dasc/gis.html, accessed 1/4/02.

Back to Top

About the Report

The United States Institute of Peace Virtual Diplomacy Initiative cosponsored with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (SOLIC) the Worldwide Civil Affairs Conference in New York City, June 28-30, 2001. This conference initiated a new, bold discussion of civil affairs doctrine by the then-assistant secretary, Frank Jones, and the Civil Affairs Command. Their objective was to examine current doctrine with an eye toward adapting it to meet the new contingencies facing civil affairs units in this era of operations other than war.

This report describes a unique session featuring international humanitarian experts responding to the question of how civil affairs could help enhance security for relief operations and increasingly, for personal security, through improved information sharing in the field.

This report was prepared by Kimberly Maynard. Maynard is the director for the Good Practices Project and was moderator for the humanitarian-military information-sharing session at the 2001 Worldwide Civil Affairs Conference.

Back to Top

Virtual Diplomacy Initiative Homepage  |  About the Initiative  |  What's New  |  Activities   |  Grants
Publications  |  Electronic Discussion Group  |  Contact Virtual Diplomacy

Institute Home  |  Education & Training  |  Grants & Fellowships  |  Policy Research  |  Library & Links
Publications   |  News & Media  |  About Us  |  Events | Resources  |  Jobs  |  Contact Us
Site Map

United States Institute of Peace  --  1200 17th Street NW  -- Washington, DC 20036
(202) 457-1700 (phone)  --  (202) 429-6063 (fax)
Send Feedback