Threatens staff safety, effectiveness in region
hit by Boko Haram
Features
Aid agencies are unable to
respond effectively to the crisis in northeastern Nigeria due to worsening
insecurity and stifling operational requirements imposed by military and
civilian authorities, Human Rights Watch said today. Such restrictions give the
impression that the organizations are not independent, making them vulnerable
to attacks by Boko Haram.
The humanitarian crisis in
northeastern Nigeria’s Borno, Adamawa, and Yobe states is among the world’s
most severe, with 1.8 million people internally displaced and over 7 million
people in need of urgent lifesaving assistance, as a result of the 10 year
insurgency by Boko Haram.
“Nigerian authorities should
ensure that aid agencies can deliver timely and effective help to people
affected by the conflict,” said Anietie Ewang, Nigeria researcher at Human
Rights Watch. “Undue restrictions are intensifying the suffering of vulnerable
people in dire need of life-saving assistance.”
Human Rights Watch
interviewed two senior military officials and 19 aid workers from nine
organizations working in Maiduguri, in northeastern Nigeria, and in Abuja, the
capital, between November 2019 and February 2020. The aid workers said that the
amount of control the Nigerian military now has over their activities prevents
them from reaching millions of people and causes safety concerns as other
parties to the conflict may view aid groups as taking the government’s side.
“We are not working where or
how we want to work,” the country director of one aid organization said. “Any
pushback can escalate to hostilities with the military with dire consequences.”
For years, military
authorities have restricted aid organizations from operating outside of
government-controlled areas based on the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act,
2013, which criminalizes engagement with groups the government lists as
terrorist. Military authorities have reinforced this ban with threats of
arrests.
Since 2019, after a
resurgence in fighting, government and military officials have also required
aid organizations to undergo lengthy processes to obtain compulsory
authorization for moving personnel, cash, and cargo carrying relief materials
in the northeast region. The military mandated using armed escorts on some
routes, banned certain types of goods, and limited the amount of fuel the
agencies can use in the field.
Some aid workers told Human
Rights Watch that the restrictions have only intensified the very real threat
of abduction and execution aid workers face. In July, fighters from a Boko
Haram faction killed one aid worker and abducted six, all staff of Action
Against Hunger. Five of the six were later killed. On January 18, 2020,
suspected Boko Haram insurgents attacked a United Nations facility housing
several aid groups in Ngala, Borno State. At least 20 internally displaced
people waiting for assistance at the facility were killed, media reports said.
Twelve aid workers were
killed in 2019 alone, double the number in the previous year, while two others
remain in captivity. In August, the head of the United Nations Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) in Nigeria announced that 37 aid
workers had been killed since the onset of the conflict in 2009.
A senior military officer in
the army’s 7th Division, the unit at the forefront of the war against Boko
Haram, who asked to remain anonymous, said the restrictions are needed to
ensure military efforts to guarantee national security and protect citizens and
aid workers.
In September 2019, the
military closed three Action Against Hunger and five Mercy Corps offices in
Borno and Yobe states for two months following accusations, which have not been
proven, of corruption or support to insurgents. Both agencies strongly deny the
allegations. The report of a military board of inquiry set up to investigate
the allegations is yet to be made public.
The two-month suspension of
both organizations left up to 400,000 people without access to aid. The
humanitarian affairs minister temporarily lifted the suspension in October,
saying that the government would take new steps to vet and monitor all
humanitarian groups working in the region.
In November, the Federal
Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs, Disaster Management and Social Development
held a workshop, which included senior government and aid group officials,
focused on improving civil security cooperation in humanitarian intervention in
the northeast. But this led to vague new oversight and control procedures,
including new vetting procedures for vendors, additional reporting processes,
and regular field visits by the authorities to project sites.
In December, Borno State
passed a law that increases registration and reporting requirements for
development and aid groups operating in the state. The law also requires prior
approval for projects and introduces new controls over the locations and
categories of beneficiaries, aid groups’ activities, and the staff they can
hire in line with the state’s development plan.
Failure to comply with the
new law may result in the cancellation of an organization’s registration, and
organizations or individual aid workers may face a fine of “not less than one
million naira [about US $2,800] or up to a year in prison, or both.”
On February 24, 2020,
President Muhammadu Buhari announced that his administration will establish a
National Humanitarian Coordination Committee to “oversee all humanitarian
actions in Nigeria.” The committee will be co-chaired by the humanitarian
affairs minister and the national security adviser with members including the
United Nations resident coordinator in Nigeria and representatives of other
federal and state government agencies. It remains unclear whether this new
committee will facilitate greater independence and access for humanitarian
agencies, or merely expand the military and government’s restrictions and
controls, Human Rights Watch said.
While Boko Haram and its
breakaway factions remain a serious threat, limiting access for humanitarian
organizations, the new government-imposed restrictions and requirements appear
to run contrary to the humanitarian principle of independence. International
humanitarian law states that all parties to armed conflicts “must allow and
facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief for civilians in
need, which is impartial in character and conducted without any adverse
distinction.”
“The cumulative impact of
the regulatory requirements and restrictions on humanitarian agencies operating
in northeastern Nigeria is a serious cause for concern,” Ewang said. “The
United Nations and government agencies, including the humanitarian affairs
ministry, should work to support the efforts of the aid groups to save lives in
line with the principles that guide them.”
The Northeast humanitarian crisis
In 2019, at least 600 people
were killed during renewed fighting between security forces and Boko Haram
factions. The ongoing conflict continues to trigger new displacement, deepening
humanitarian needs and protection-related concerns.
In Borno State, the
epicenter of the crisis, 23 out of 27 Local Government Areas (LGAs) are in
severe need of humanitarian assistance, according to a joint message presented
by the humanitarian community, including the United Nations, international
nongovernmental organizations, and civil society organizations, to
representatives of the Borno State government. By their estimates, 19 LGAs,
including Bama, Gwoza, Kala Balge, Moba, and Monguno, are facing “extreme
severity” with Kala Balge at the top of the list. Kala Balge is reported to
have entered phase four of the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification
(IPC), which global organizations, including the World Food Programme and the Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, have created for food
security and humanitarian analysis. Phase four features severe lack of food
access with excess mortality, very high and increasing malnutrition, and
irreversible loss of livelihood resources.
The four others are reported
to be in IPC phase three, featuring highly stressed and critical lack of food
access with high and above usual malnutrition and fast depleting livelihood
resources. There are reported disease outbreaks and protection issues related
to security incidents, including missing children, psychosocial – mental health
– distress, abductions or disappearances, restrictions on freedom of movement,
and forced displacement.
Aid agencies cannot reach an
estimated 1.2 million people, a 30 percent increase since 2018, according to
Edward Kallon, the UN resident and humanitarian coordinator in Nigeria. In
terms of territory, 85 percent of Borno State is considered inaccessible by
humanitarian agencies, with four LGAs completely inaccessible. Access to seven
others is limited to the perimeter of one or two towns, reachable only by
helicopter. Access to rural populations is limited to a few areas around
Maiduguri, along some main roads, and in the southern part of the state.
According to UNOCHA,
nutrition screenings in reception centers for those arriving from inaccessible
areas reveal that the nutrition situation of children in these areas is
significantly worse than that of children in areas currently receiving
assistance. Kallon has said that preserving humanitarian access to vulnerable
communities presents the most critical challenge in the northeast humanitarian
response.
The situation is due to
several factors, including the way the military has restricted assistance to
the garrison towns under their control, the limited ability of organizations to
negotiate expanded access, and restrictions humanitarian agencies have placed
on themselves following recent targeted attacks, including abductions and
executions of humanitarian workers.
Military and other requirements
affecting access
Aid agencies are restricted
from operating outside of government-controlled areas based on the Nigerian
Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act, 2013, which criminalizes engagement with
groups the government lists as terrorist without exempting humanitarian
operations. Military authorities have reinforced this ban in verbal
communications and with threats of arrests, including at weekly meetings of the
Humanitarian Civilian Military Coordination Forum organized by UNOCHA, and more
recently at the Civil-Security Cooperation in Humanitarian Interventions in the
North-East Workshop organized by the Humanitarian Affairs Ministry in November.
Obtaining military clearance
is also a prerequisite for humanitarian cargo and staff movement in the
northeast region, while clearance from the Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission (EFCC), a law enforcement agency charged with investigating and
prosecuting financial crimes and military notification is a prerequisite for moving
cash for staff salaries and vendors or to finance essential services in remote
locations.
Getting clearance takes
about five days, with organizations required to submit notifications for
approval by the military about a week in advance of travel. For humanitarian
cargo and fuel, the process begins by submitting movement notification forms to
the UNOCHA Logistics Sector office on Wednesdays and ends the following week on
Tuesday with the issuance of travel approval letters from the military.
Movement is also often
subjected to unpredictable delays. Human Rights Watch learned that in June
2019, for example, the military suspended all cargo movements out of Maiduguri,
the Borno State capital, to various communities for about 10 days based on a
decision to review the format of the military clearance process. This
suspension, which was not communicated to those affected in advance, created a
backlog of about 400 shipments of critical, life-saving assistance in about 600
trucks, including food items and shelter materials.
An aid worker told Human
Rights Watch that the process presents a serious bureaucratic impediment made
worse by inefficiencies in the system. The aid worker said that notifications
sent for approval are sometimes lost, and that approval is sometimes delayed.
Another person said that the approval process gave the military control over
humanitarian aid against humanitarian principles. “At first we were only
required to notify the military of our movements and area of operation, but
with this system requiring stamped approvals, it is no longer a ‘notification’
but ‘authorization,’ without which we can’t operate,” he said.
The military currently
mandates using armed escorts for humanitarian cargo and civilian movement along
at least three routes from Maiduguri to some major towns, including Ngala,
Rann, Banki, Pulka, Gwoza, and South Damboa. Aid workers said that the reasons
for designating these routes are not clear and do not appear to be informed by
ongoing risk assessments because other major routes with similar or greater
security risks are not designated for mandatory military escort.
They also raised concerns
that the use of military escorts compromises the aid agencies’ operational
independence and run contrary to the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC)’s
Non-Binding Guidelines on the Use of Armed Escorts for Humanitarian Convoys’
principle of last resort. The principle of last resort states that military
convoys can only be used where no other option is available to facilitate
access and the timely delivery of humanitarian supplies, protection, and
personnel required to meet critical humanitarian needs. The principles require
agencies to exhaustively explore all other options to reduce risks and ensure
timely aid delivery and to determine that they are not viable before using
military escorts.
When military escorts are
required, they take at least one week on average to arrange, but in some
circumstances, such as from Maiduguri to Ngala, it can take three weeks, making
it difficult for organizations to respond rapidly to new situations.
In August, UNOCHA and the
International Non-Governmental Organizations Forum – a member organization
which provides a collective platform for international aid groups to
efficiently and effectively coordinate interventions – worked with the EFCC on
guidelines to facilitate the movement of cash used in the field for the payment
of salaries, humanitarian transfers, and other miscellaneous expenses. This
stemmed from persistent accusations by government officials that humanitarian
organizations were funding terrorist activities.
Under the guidelines, the
aid groups are to submit a Profile and a Cash Movement Notification form for
approval by the commission, which is to inform the military when organizations
have been approved to move cash to the field. But aid groups still encounter
problems due largely to the military’s lack of awareness of the process and
failure to respect the guidelines.
The military’s decision to
limit the amount of fuel available to each agency has also caused reduced
activities or total shutdowns, especially for agencies providing life-saving
assistance, including medical care, agencies have told Human Rights Watch. Fuel
is needed to run vehicles and generators to power hospitals and medical centers
in areas without electricity. The new limit imposed in July 2019 allows only 1,000
liters of fuel each week in each area of operation. The limit had been 10,000
liters in 2017 and 5,000 in 2018. The reduction was made without consultation
or notification, allegedly to avoid diversion of fuel to the armed opposition
groups.
“We have to put a limit on
how often and where our vehicles can go, and when we can turn on our generators
and turn them off,” the country director of an aid agency said. “It is a
serious administrative burden.”
In June 2019, the Office of
the National Security Adviser banned the transportation and use of fertilizers
considered “dual use items,” which could be diverted and used by insurgency
groups to make explosives. Only certain types of NPK liquid, organic
fertilizers, have been approved for use in Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa states.
Humanitarian organizations providing livelihood and food security support to
affected communities said, though, that military officers have even prevented
the movement of liquid and organic fertilizers. In one case, the military
seized trucks of approved fertilizers for several months, making it impossible
for farmers to use them in the rainy season, when they were needed to cultivate
crops.
The military also requires
humanitarian organizations to vet local businesses they hire to transport or
provide food and other relief items in communities where they work, to ensure
they have no ties with armed groups. Aid agencies have introduced internal
vetting measures, including proof of mandatory registration with the Corporate
Affairs Commission, operation of valid bank accounts with established
institutions, and checks on various platforms that gather information on
organizations or individuals financing terrorism in Nigeria.
The military has, however,
come down hard on organizations for using vendors accused of flouting military
regulations and has recently proposed requiring all humanitarian organizations
to use only eight military-approved vendors. Agencies told Human Rights Watch
that they have concerns about the eight vendors’ capacity to meet their needs,
as well as about the military or political control or involvement with the
approved vendors.
Government blocks impartial humanitarian
response
Aid workers said that the
military exerts control over where and when humanitarian organizations can
deliver aid through their numerous requirements. One aid worker who works on
logistics said that the requirements have made the humanitarian response
heavily reliant on the military in an unusual way that compromises the aid
agencies’ independence and appearance of neutrality.
Organizations currently do
not operate in population centers outside of military or government control and
are prohibited from negotiating access with armed opposition groups, even if
this were feasible. Military officials, including high ranking officers,
consistently say that the principles of humanitarian action in war do not apply
in the northeast conflict. One humanitarian worker said that, “the army will
say openly to us that it is not an armed conflict; it is an insurgency so
humanitarian principles do not apply here.”
Another aid group’s country
director said that: “operationally, the activities and programs of the agency
are not neutral because everything is under the control of the military. The
military is imposing a non-neutral response on us because we only go where they
want us or approve us to go.”
“Our independence guarantees
our safety,” said the advocacy director of one group that provides lifesaving
medical assistance. “Any action, whatever it is that indicates humanitarians
are on a certain side of the conflict, makes us vulnerable and puts us at
risk.”
Aid workers also said that
the military’s unsubstantiated accusations that some humanitarian organizations
were providing support to Boko Haram creates a negative rhetoric that could
alienate workers from the communities they serve and put them at risk in these
communities.
“The army does not want to
hear of neutrality,” another humanitarian worker said. “Saying to the military
that you are neutral is saying that you are supporting Boko Haram.”
The military has often
relied on international counterterrorism policies to support its position,
especially since 2014, when the UN Security Council added Boko Haram to its
Al-Qaeda Sanctions List – since renamed the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida Sanctions
List – which requires UN member states to impose asset freezes and other
penalties on designated groups. Based on the Security Council listing, the
military not only restricts the humanitarian response to areas it controls, but
also has pressed humanitarian groups to provide their lists of aid
beneficiaries for them to scrutinize.
Some international donors
have also imposed restrictions on providing aid to anyone connected with armed
opposition groups. Humanitarian workers told Human Rights Watch that in one
case, aid agencies are required to inform the donor if aid is given to anyone
connected to Boko Haram or ISWAP, including for people who may have been
kidnapped or who have been in the territory controlled by these groups for more
than six months.
“This trend worries me not
only in the context of Nigeria but worldwide,” an aid worker said. “It is not
our duty to profile people on need and turn them away. If we continue operating
under these conditions, it will become normal and international humanitarian
law principles will be eroded.”
Leave your comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment