Feinstein International Famine Center June 2005 Mapping the Security Environment Understanding the perceptions of local communities, peace support operations, and assistance agencies Antonio Donini, Larry Minear, Ian Smillie, Ted van Baarda, and Anthony C. Welch Feinstein International Famine Center The Feinstein International Famine Center, established in 1996, is located within Tufts University’s Friedman School of Nutrition, Science and Policy. Our goal is to develop and promote operational and policy responses to protect and strengthen the livelihoods of people living in crisis affected and marginalized communities, impacted by violence, malnutrition or loss of assets. We work globally to understand the causes and effects of marginalization, famine, conflict, and forced displacement, and with national and international organizations to bring about institutional changes that enhance effective policy reform and promote best practice. Feinstein International Famine Center A report commissioned by the United Kingdom NGO–Military Contact Group June 2005 Mapping the Security Environment Understanding the perceptions of local communities, peace support operations, and assistance agencies Antonio Donini, Larry Minear, Ian Smillie, Ted van Baarda, and Anthony C. Welch © 2005. Feinstein International Famine Center. All rights reserved. The views presented in this paper do not represent the official views of the Feinstein International Famine Center. This paper is available on line at www.famine.tufts.edu. Correct citation: Donini, A., Minear, L., Smillie, I., van Baarda, T. and Welch, A.C. (2005) Mapping the Security Environment: Understanding the Perceptions of Local Communities, Peace Support Operations and Assistance Agencies. A report commissioned by the UK NGO–Military Contact Group. Feinstein International Famine Center, Tufts University: Medford, MA, USA. Feinstein International Famine Center School of Nutrition Science and Policy Tufts University Medford, MA 02155 Email: [email protected] Contents Executive Summary v Afghanistan: “Peace is jobs and electricity” vi Kosovo: “Living in a bubble” viii Sierra Leone: “We are security for ourselves” x 1. Introduction 1 Background 1 Conceptual framework 3 Acknowledgements 6 2. Case Studies 8 Afghanistan: “Peace is jobs and electricity” 8 Kosovo: “Living in a bubble” 21 Sierra Leone: “We are security for ourselves” 36 3. Findings and Conclusions 50 Basic concepts 50 Overarching finding 52 The evolution of security and perceptions thereof 53 Securitization of aid 55 How do PSOs look at security? 57 How do AAs look at security? 59 How do local communities look at security? 60 Are the voices of local communities being heard? 62 The road ahead 63 Endnotes 65 Appendices Appendix 1: Acronyms 70 Appendix 2: Survey Instruments 72 Appendix 3: Methodological Issues 78 Appendix 4: Research Seminar 81 Appendix 5: For Further Reference 86 Appendix 6: Biographical information on Tufts Team Members 95 Illustrative Boxes Box 1. Overview of case studies 1 Box 2. Research Terms of Reference: A secure environment for whom? 2 Box 3. Terminology 3 Box 4. Sources of data: Local communities 5 Box 5. Sources of data: PSOs/AAs 6 Box 6. The final status of Kosovo 23 Box 7. Selected views from the scene 26 Box 8. Inter-Albanian violence in the Western region of Pec/Peja 30 Box 9. Tensions in the Prishtinë/Pristina area 33 Box 10. International resource flows to Sierra Leone 38 Box 11. Comparability issues 51 Box 12. Security and economic assistance in peace-building operations 55 Box 13. Summary table of interviews in Afghanistan 79 Maps Afghanistan 9 Kosovo 22 Serb populations in Kosovo pre- and post-war 25 Sierra Leone 37 Photographs Focus group with amputees, Hastings, Sierra Leone cover Focus group – Chenar Village, Sarobi District, Kabul Province 19 An Albanian child encounters an American patrol in Mitrovica during the riots of 2001 24 Focus group with students in Kambia 46 Médicins sans Frontières (MSF) vehicle passing a tank in Kosovo 58 Mapping the Security Environment v Executive Summary This research, commissioned by the UK NGO–Military Contact Group and funded by the Department for International Development (DFID), examines perceptions of security among three sets of actors: peace support operations (PSOs), assistance agencies (AAs), and local populations, in countries in or recovering from crisis. During January—March 2005, a five-person research team from Tufts University conducted interviews with some 350 persons in individual and focus group settings in three locations: Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Sierra Leone. The findings were the subject of a seminar hosted by the UK Ministry of Defence in London on 19 April 2005 and the highlights of that discussion are included in this report. The research made three major findings. First, perceptions of security differ significantly among the three sets of actors. Within the context of their mission objectives, the military contingents that char- acterize PSOs understand security first and foremost in terms of “force protection”, that is, the need for protection of their own personnel from attacks and threats of attack. PSO perceptions of the security needs of AAs and local communities are viewed through those lenses. While AAs are also concerned about insecurity as it impinges on their ability to carry out their assistance and protection activities, they are more likely to take risks in the interest of carrying out their tasks. They also tend to have a better understanding of how socio-economic issues impact on security and generally have a better grasp than PSOs do of the concerns of local populations. For their part, local communities view se- curity as safety from physical harm and abuse but also extending far beyond to encompass a sense of well-being, including elements such as employment, access to basic services, political participation, and cultural identity. As one respondent put it, “There is no peace without bread.” Thus, communities have a more holistic understanding of what constitutes security than the narrower concerns of the two other sets of actors. The second major finding is that perceptions differ significantly within each of the three sets of actors. National contingents that make up PSOs have different understandings of force protection and how best to achieve it, reflecting national military and political cultures. This results in quite different security postures even within the same PSO. There are also major differences within the community of AAs, with on the one hand many international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) seeking security through ‘blending in’ with local communities whilst on the other hand UN assistance organizations keeping at arms’ length. Differences are evident even among UN agencies and within the NGO family. Local perceptions of security reflect a mélange of factors, including age, gender, economic status, political position, and the like. Thirdly, perceptions of security evolve significantly over time. The three settings examined were at dif- ferent stages of their respective crises: Kosovo with relative peace since mid-1999, Sierra Leone since 2000, and Afghanistan with continuing warfare in certain areas. The data suggests that local perceptions of security move rather quickly to encompass a wider range of concerns beyond physical security. While the changing security situation on the ground made for changing roles for outside actors, PSOs and AAs often seemed hard pressed to accommodate to changing needs. There is some evidence to sug- gest, however, that PSOs have done better at adapting than AAs. At the same time, local communities had little patience for the kinds of discussions of comparative advantage that preoccupy international agencies, being concerned more with enhancing security, broadly understood, than with distinctions about which institutions would assist them in the process. Feinstein International Famine Center vi The report proposes the concepts of physical and human security and of negative and positive peace as a framework for understanding the differing perceptions of security encountered. Physical secu- rity is understood to involve protection from harm and abuse, while human security encompasses a broader range of “quality of life” elements. Negative peace is understood to mean the absence of outright conflict, whereas positive peace connotes a situation in which the root causes of conflict are being effectively addressed. Local populations in each of the three settings articulated a strong sense that such security and peace as has been achieved could evaporate quickly if peace were not consolidated and the institutions of civil society not promptly nurtured. In sum, the data presented and analyzed by the study offers an intriguing and provocative look at the wide-ranging security needs of local communities and the uneven extent to which these are under- stood and responded to by major international institutions. The voices of local communities are not being heard, much less “privileged,” by outside actors. The dominant voices in transition environments instead are those of PSOs and AAs. Even the voice of government is often muffled. Such a disconnect has major implications: if the perceptions of local communities were to be the entry point for outside actor engagement or the benchmark for the effectiveness of international assistance and peace sup- port, a major re-thinking of the ways PSOs and AAs operate would be required. The report therefore points to the value