DECEMBER 2019 Making Sanctions Smarter: Safeguarding Humanitarian Action ALICE DEBARRE Cover Photo: Emergency supplies are ABOUT THE AUTHOR loaded into a UN helicopter that will deliver them to flood-affected ALICE DEBARRE is a former Senior Policy Analyst at the communities in Belet Weyne, Somalia, International Peace Institute. October 31, 2019. UNSOM. Disclaimer: The views expressed in this ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS paper represent those of the author and not necessarily those of the IPI is thankful to the member-state representatives, UN International Peace Institute. IPI officials, representatives of humanitarian organizations, and welcomes consideration of a wide other experts who contributed significantly to the research range of perspectives in the pursuit of and its findings through bilateral interviews or participation a well-informed debate on critical in an expert meeting held at IPI’s offices in New York on policies and issues in international May 9, 2019. In particular, the author wishes to thank affairs. Hans-Jakob Schindler, Senior Director at the Counter IPI Publications Extremism Project and consultant adviser to IPI's project Adam Lupel, Vice President on sanctions and humanitarian action, for his expert guidance and advice over the course of the project. The Albert Trithart, Editor author also wishes to thank Janhavi Apte for excellent Meredith Harris, Editorial Intern research support, and Emanuela-Chiara Gillard (Chatham House) and Emma O'Leary (NRC) for their support and Suggested Citation: insightful contributions over the course of the project, Alice Debarre, “Making Sanctions including for this final report. All errors and opinions Smarter: Safeguarding Humanitarian expressed are those of the author alone. Action,” International Peace Institute, December 2019. IPI owes a debt of gratitude to its many donors for their generous support. IPI is particularly grateful to the German © by International Peace Institute, 2019 Federal Foreign Office for making this publication possible. All Rights Reserved www.ipinst.org CONTENTS Abbreviations . iii Executive Summary . 1 Introduction . 2 The Impact of Sanctions Regimes on Humanitarian Action . 3 Assessing the Impact in Specific Countries. 5 THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA (DPRK) SYRIA AFGHANISTAN SOMALIA Safeguarding the Space for Humanitarian Action under Sanctions Regimes . 17 INCLUDING LANGUAGE THAT SAFEGUARDS HUMANITARIAN ACTIVITIES IN SANCTIONS REGIMES RAISING AWARENESS AND PROMOTING MULTI-STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE CONDUCTING BETTER, MORE SYSTEMATIC MONITORING AND REPORTING DEVELOPING MORE AND IMPROVED GUIDANCE IMPROVING RISK MANAGEMENT AND RISK SHARING Conclusions and Recommendations . 35 Annex: Examples of Language Safeguarding Humanitarian Activities in Sanctions Regimes . 38 iii Abbreviations ACAMS Association of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists DPRK Democratic People’s Republic of Korea DRC Democratic Republic of the Congo FATF Financial Action Task Force IAN Implementation Assistance Notice IASC Inter-Agency Standing Committee IHL International humanitarian law INTSTEX EU Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges MOU Memorandum of understanding OCHA UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs OFAC Office of Foreign Assets Control RMU Risk-management unit SCAD UN Security Council Affairs Division UAE United Arab Emirates UNVIM UN Verification and Inspection Mechanism for Yemen USAID US Agency for International Development 1 Executive Summary • Restrictive clauses in donor agreements: Such clauses can increase costs, limit flexibility, and In recent decades, sanctions have increasingly been challenge the impartiality of humanitarian used as a foreign policy tool. The UN Security operations. Due to concerns over sanctions and Council has imposed fourteen sanctions regimes terrorism, donors are particularly risk-averse in alongside those imposed autonomously by the EU, Syria and Afghanistan, imposing restrictions that the US, and other countries. Despite efforts to create difficulties for humanitarian actors. institute more targeted sanctions regimes, these • Fines and prosecution: Humanitarian actors risk regimes continue to impede or prevent the being fined or prosecuted for violating sanctions, provision of humanitarian assistance and protec- though this has not been a prevalent problem so tion. far. There are four case studies that are particularly • Chilling effect: The above challenges often lead useful for exploring the impact of these sanctions humanitarian actors to err on the side of caution, regimes: the Democratic People’s Republic of self-regulating beyond what is legally or contrac- Korea (DPRK), Syria, Afghanistan, and Somalia. In tually required. In Afghanistan and Somalia, for each of these countries, humanitarian actors have example, humanitarian organizations have struggled with the impact of UN sanctions, as well avoided working in the large swathes of the as of sanctions imposed by the US and the EU. country outside of government control in part These cases reveal seven ways sanctions regimes due to their fear of violating sanctions. can impact humanitarian action: While there are no straightforward solutions to • Listing of humanitarian organizations: The these problems, stakeholders could consider a most direct and immediate risk is the possibility number of ways forward: that a humanitarian organization or one of its • Including language that safeguards humani- staff members is put on a sanctions list, though tarian activities in sanctions regimes: This this has not happened yet. would help ensure that these regimes are • Exemption procedures: Applying for exemp- implemented in a way that aligns with their tions requires a significant investment of time intended purposes and, where applicable, with and resources and can create challenges for the international humanitarian law. principled delivery of aid. In the DPRK and Syria • Raising awareness and promoting multi- in particular, exemption procedures for UN, US, stakeholder dialogue: More understanding is and EU sanctions are onerous and not widely needed of what sanctions regimes are and how understood. The UN Somalia sanctions regime is they affect the humanitarian sector. the only one with an exception rather than an exemption—a provision that is helpful, albeit • Conducting better, more systematic monitoring limited, in its scope and not systematically of and reporting on the impact of sanctions on implemented by member states. humanitarian activities: Information on this impact is important to understand, track, and • De-risking: In seeking to mitigate their risk, appropriately respond to these challenges. banks and other private sector actors sometimes restrict or refuse to provide services to humani- • Developing more and improved guidance on tarian organizations. In the DPRK, for example, the scope of sanctions regimes: Better guidance there is no banking channel for humanitarian would help ensure humanitarian actors, donors, actors, and humanitarian actors in Syria also face and the private sector do not interpret sanctions difficulties in accessing financial services. regimes to be broader or more restrictive than they actually are. • Restrictions on importing goods: Restrictions on dual-use items, in particular, can delay or • Improving risk management and risk sharing: block imports of humanitarian goods. This is a Humanitarian actors should not be left to problem in the DPRK and Syria, where suppliers, shoulder all the risk that stems from operating in shippers, and authorities in transit countries are contexts in which sanctions regimes apply. taking a risk-averse approach. 2 Alice Debarre Introduction on humanitarian activities. In some cases, the difficulty comes from the fact that multiple In recent decades, sanctions have increasingly been sanctions regimes coexist, each with a different used as a foreign policy tool. They are imposed for scope and standards and few concrete implementa- a variety of reasons, including to push for political tion guidelines demarcating their limits. In other change or as a tool for nonproliferation or global cases, a sanctions regime may be one among many counterterrorism. Following the devastating drivers of the challenges humanitarian actors face. impact of sanctions in Iraq on the civilian popula- The first section of this paper captures the adverse tion in the 1990s, they are now, for the most part, impact that sanctions regimes have had on meant to be targeted or “smart.” This means that humanitarian activities in these four countries and, sanctions measures such as travel bans, embargoes, where possible, points to the causal link between or asset freezes are imposed only on specific the impact and the sanctions. individuals and entities that are added to a This paper aims to assist the Security Council, sanctions list. relevant UN organs, UN member states, humani- There are currently fourteen sanctions regimes tarian actors, and other stakeholders in ensuring imposed by the UN Security Council through that humanitarian activities are safeguarded in Chapter VII resolutions, which member states are contexts in which sanctions regimes apply. For this legally required to implement. The implementation purpose, this paper lays out five areas in which of UN sanctions regimes is monitored by sanctions further progress is needed: the development of committees composed of the fifteen members of safeguarding provisions; awareness raising and the Security Council and supported by inde - multi-stakeholder dialogue;