U.N. report says local staff are often shortchanged on security, psychological support
p>LONDON (AlertNet) - One voice that's often missing from the aid debate is that of the national staffer - the Somali, Afghan or Congolese humanitarian worker.Not only do local employees of aid organisations tend to be offered less security training than their international colleagues and less protection for their homes and cars, they often don't get the same "danger money" benefits or access to stress counselling, let alone R&R breaks in the sun.
"This unequal treatment does not typically represent neglect or unethical behaviour by the international organisations, but rather is often based on certain false assumptions," says a U.N. report on the security risks aid workers face, which devotes a chapter to how national staff see the situation.
Those assumptions include the belief that a national is able to work more safely anywhere in a country because he or she does not stand out as a foreigner. In reality, a person from a different region or province, ethnic group, religion or clan can be regarded as just as much of an outsider by the local community - and crucially, may even be at additional risk.
Another misconception is that local staffers don't need the same security and psychological support because they have their communities and families to protect them, the report says. But what's forgotten is that they and their relatives are often having to deal with danger themselves.
This oversight is tantamount to a lesser duty of care by international agencies for their national staff, the report argues - especially when you consider that nationals account for more than 90 percent of staff in the field and the majority of aid workers attacked.
LOCAL STAFF GO UNHEARD
More than 1,140 national staff were polled for the study, "To Stay and Deliver".
Suicide bombings and kidnappings were ranked as the top two threats to aid operations by national staff in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Somalia.
In Democratic Republic of Congo, Chad and Sudan, the top two concerns were car-jacking and lesser crimes such as robbery, while in the Palestinian territories and Sri Lanka, they were armed raids and collateral damage from heavy shelling, for example.
The most dangerous jobs were perceived to be guard, driver and field programme officer. Working for U.N. agencies was deemed more risky than working for a Western international NGO or a religious organisation. However, in the Palestinian territories and Sri Lanka, local groups were considered more at risk.
According to the survey, 57 percent of national staff thought locals were generally more at risk than internationals, although many distinguished between the greater exposure experienced by national employees due to being in the field and travelling by road more, or living without extra security precautions at home, compared to the politically motivated risks facing expats. Only in the Palestinian territories was there a strong consensus that national staff faced greater risk than international workers.
Most national staff thought their expat colleagues tended to overestimate the local security risk - perhaps reflecting the fact that local aid workers are usually in their positions for longer and so have seen a thing or two.
The report, which was commissioned by the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), says survey comments from national staff indicated they did not feel they were being listened to by international colleagues, who "project themselves as experts".
"It is easy to see how such international attitudes and obstacles to national staff consultation on security matters could amount to missed opportunities at best and dangerous missteps at worst," the report concludes.
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
