ICRC Risk Management System - Research Paper Example

Risk Management System ICRC Risk Management System Introduction It appears like the world is becoming a riskier place to live than before. Several aid organizations are thereby established in order to save the human race from vanishing. Violence, accidents, fatal diseases, famine and other forms disasters have been on the lead on claiming for human lives. Consequently, a number of national and international humanitarian agencies and organizations are currently obliged to adjust their risk management strategies in order to save more lives, and the deteriorating human environment. One of the most honored and oldest humanitarian organizations, established to save the human race from such misfortunes is the ICRC (International Committee of Red Cross). ICRC is a humanitarian organization, with its headquarters at Geneva, Switzerland (Bennett, 2005, p. 231). The organizations sole mandate is to protect or save victims of both national and international catastrophes. Nonetheless, ICRC humanitarian organization workers have been at top risks during their endeavors to save of protect human lives (Slim, 1989, p. 432). ICRC owns international offices, commonly referred to as Delegations in over eighty countries. Every delegation operates under a Delegation Head, which serves as the official ICRC representative in other nations. ICRC operates under the stewardship of about two thousand professional employees. According to Bennett (2005, p.243), of the 2000 employees, approximately 800 work at the organization’s headquarter in Geneva while the remaining 1200 or more, work at the field. Elaborately, approximately half of the field workers work as ICRC delegates, managing the ICRC activities or operations in a number of diverse countries; the remaining half serve as specialists such as doctors, interpreters, agronomists, or engineers (Philippe, 1998, p. 337). Furthermore, within the delegations, the international staff also receive assistance from some other 12, 000 national employees, making the total staff under the ICRC’s authority to be approximately over 15, 0000. As well, the delegations work in compliance to the National Red Cross Societies established within the nations that they serve, hence can engage a number of volunteers of the National Red Cross in order to assist in the ICRC operations (François, 2003, p. 255). ICRC’s organizational structure is quite complicated and difficult to understand, especially for the non-members. This is an intentional strategy that aids in keeping the organizations secrets at pinnacle. Also, the structure is itself is mutable to a greater percentage and is commonly prone to changes. The organization’s Presidency and Assembly are two established institutions. However, the Directorate and Assembly Council were recently brought to action later by twentieth century. ICRC’s decision making is a very vital pillar upon which the organization stands, hence the relationships between power and authorities have no concrete definition (Bennett, 2005, p. 237). As at present, the organization’s primary organs are the Assembly and the Directorate. ICRC uses four official languages including English, Spanish, Arabic and French. The formal symbol of the organization is a “Red Cross” enclosed within the words ‘COMITE INTERNATIONAK GENEVA’ encircling the cross on a white background. The mission statement of the business is “the ICRC is an independent, impartial, and neutral organization, whose elite humanitarian mission is to preserve the dignity and protect the lives of war, international violence, and to offer them assistance.” (Philippe, 1998, p. 340). The central tasks of the ICRC are: i) To monitor acquiescence of the warring parties both in Geneva and international conventions ii) To organize care and protection of civil populations iii) To establish nursing and care for the victims of misfortunes iv) To help in searching for the missing victims of armed conflicts and other fatalities resulting from natural phenomena. v) To serve as a neutral intermediary between the warring or opposing parties. The sector of disaster management has witnessed a paradigm shift in its operations and programs. Disasters are no more considered as severe events generated by natural forces, but recognized as manifestations of the unresolved developmental problems within the human society. Disaster management operations have thereby evolved greatly from response and relief approaches to inter-sectorial risk management approaches. Not until the last few decades, people considered disasters as kind of events responded to by the relief agencies and governments without taking into consideration the economic and social implications, as well as the causes of such events. With gradual advancement in human understanding of the natural phenomenal processes underlying the hazardous events, more technical paradigms came into being. These paradigms made people to think that the most effectual way to deal with disasters and other misfortunes in the society is through the application of public policies of engineering and geophysical knowledge. Defining “Risk” Risk has three cumulative definition paradigms: The possibility that an hazardous event will take place over a given period (short-term, long-term, looming, or permanent risk) The danger or threat (as defined by its nature), such as abduction, robbery, theft, disease break-out, and shelling among others) The adverse consequences arising from human operations or activities on the environment. Understanding the ICRC’s Risks As armed conflicts tend to become more polarized and radicalized that before, ICRC as an organization and its staff face excessive risks of being rejected since some extremist groups perceive them in the context of alignment to the government or the opposing rivals during the conflicts. Several reasons surround this fact including (i) the blurring lines between military, humanitarian and political actions (David, 1978, p.213), (ii) plummeting the scope for humanitarian actions, (iii) casting in doubt the independent and neutral humanitarian actions, (iv) the diverse consequences of global war against terror and mistaken identities, and (v) internationalization of various armed groups. Such trends are worryingly making the humanitarian works to become extremely risky, especially within the conflict or disaster infested areas. Even though this can still remain sealed and unknown to the ICRC as a humanitarian organization, violence is currently becoming more specific, and in several occasions, the ICRC aid workers remain as part of war targets. Evidently, the growing number of such attacks is now worrying, and the central propellants arise from political motivations, which should instead target the national and international economic gains by avoiding threats of robberies, lootings, famine, and floods among other commonly experienced disasters. The incidences of humanitarian workers’ security risks are still at pale, and a number of analyses relating to the humanitarian activities reveal that the incidences are source-related. David (1978, p. 217) reveals that targeted violent acts and political threats such as hostage-takings, ambushes, or direct attacks have a far-reaching impact on aid activities since they demonstrate lack of willingness by the conflicting parties to accept or understand the concept of humanitarian organizations (Dominique-D, 2008, p. 132). In the recent years, the number of ICRC personnel working at the fields, as well as the volume of operations conducted by the organization are increasing at a significant rate. Nevertheless, the number of security incidents on the ICRC workers remains a major concern. For instance, the hostage-taking of three ICRC staff workers on 15th January, 2009 in Philippines served as a vital reminder to the organization that serious security incidents on its workers are yet to happen within the conflict areas or disaster infested area. ICRC’s Risk Management Strategies According to Jean-Claude (1999, p. 432) risk management is the recognition, measurement, and management of risks or uncertainties with potential threats to assets, business, and reputation of an organization. Safety, and security management are increasingly becoming the central concern and element of organizational risk management. Every organization thereby needs to manage the speculated risks to its operations in order to achieve its objectives. Risk management is thereby unlimited or unrestricted to operational activities within the environment or merely the technical responses; it is a managerial, institutional and/or organizational process. In view of its nature and mission, ICRC chose to make “insecurity” the main target in its operational policy (François, (2003, p. 249). Threat and Risk assessment is thereby an integral step during the process of “operational strategy” establishment. Risk or threat is a vital concern for every delegate’s routine since it is a common characteristic of the operational or work environment- it determines the ICRC’s operational choices (Patrick, 2009, p. 467). Upon the concrete realization of its mandate as a humanitarian organization, the ICRC currently strives day by day to reconcile its operational obligations of standing by and supporting disaster victims (such as the conflict victims, as well as other vulnerable persons) with its central concern towards its personnel (Berkes, 2007, p. 291). The organization must thereby weigh the impacts of every humanitarian operation it undertakes against the possible risks evolved. ICRC’s central aim is to be predictable and serve with lots of transparency through walking its talks (doing what it says, and saying what it does). In order to preserve its operational capacity and use a mode of action shared and understood by all, it built up a network of contacts with all it member states, as well as parties to the conflicts and other disaster infested areas. This risk management strategy enables the organization to mobilize all its players for a smooth run of operations, which are now more diverse and numerous in all its branches. Supposing the organization speculates any risk on its workers, it is currently easier to reach the workers and rescue them from the danger. Within an increasingly developing technological world, there are more interconnections and communications networks that enable the ICRC to successfully manage its links. This enables the organization to realize its need for neutrality and political independence on mobilization and communication of its operations (Jean-Claude, 1999, p. 433). As well, it enables the ICRC to gain the general view and understanding of how different people may view its neutrality and independence at regional, local, national, and global levels. In every operational circumstance, the organization is mindful of the public perception of its image as projected by its performance, as well as the conduct of its staff, both at private and professional levels. For ICRC, member training is a key security and risk factor. Training is thereby one of the organization’s priorities towards enhancing the understanding, knowledge and skills of its workers to undertake a risky operation (Oliver & Kingston, 2010, p. 87). Training also helps create permanent awareness of risks, and ensures consistent knowledge and skills of security measures. This strategy also intends to prevent workers at the field from undertaking risks that would outdo the operational limits (such as involving in a fight or being on the war front). As well, the ICRC ensures that the National Society staff involved in its Movement operations receive proper security training from the corresponding National Society. It is the responsibility of individuals directing the ICRC’s field operations to manage risk and other security related issues (Philippe, 1998, p. 339). The ICRC thereby make no distinction between risk management and its operational conducts. Its approach to security issues is affiliated to that of the risk management- with emphasis on “prevention before occurrence or before the fact.” This commonly serve as a supplement to “after-the-fact incident management,” which aids the organization to learn from its experiences and adopt the best practices out of regular operations. Even though the local, regional, and international risks are closely interrelated, the ICRC’s risk management model bases on decision-making, decentralized initiatives, and responsibility of the field security workers (Jean-Claude, 1999, p. 426). The head of delegation makes decision and implements the required measures by the overall environment and the context for the delegation’s line of duties and performance. The security and risk management units play an advisory role within the organization (Oliver & Kingston, 2010, p. 90). This far-reaching autonomy is practiced by the field staff within a well-defined organizational framework, which embraces three basic aspects: the ICRC’s security, mandate, and its principle concepts (Patrick, 2009, p. 453). While at the field, every delegation holds a responsibility of assessing its security and risk related environment in accordance with the current situations and on the basis of the ICRC’s organizational framework. Moreover, the contemporary risk management embroils developing methods of creating awareness and increasing preparedness for dangers emanating from external forces, especially those that are threatening to the ICRC’s smooth performance (Pierre, 2004, p. 510). In scenarios where the ICRC is liable for coordinating and directing joint field operations of the IRCRCM (International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement) under the Seville Agreement, it is responsible for establishing, maintaining and managing the risk management framework for the components of movement operating within the coordinated “Movement Approach.” Information is a very fundamental aspect of security. ICRC thereby implements its security objective of fact-gathering and information sharing. This is with a sole aim of making ICRC a well-known humanitarian platform and enhance its overall understanding of the environment within which it operates. Through using the most accessible and reliable information, the ICRC is capable of anticipating events and reacting appropriately to the evolving situations whenever danger arises within the field (Toni, 2005, p. 159). Its internal information sharing thereby allows for a smooth flow of action directives from senior dilation to staff, and easy information sharing between ICRC workers and the external contacts, between the headquarters and the field operations, as well as between delegations. Another protective pillar that also serves as a risk management strategy for the ICRC is the “Protective Measures.” These measures are useful in strengthening the ICRC’s operations within the field. They involve step by step measures undertaken to boost the security of ICRC workers, infrastructure, buildings, and field operations as a whole. Alternatively, when deciding to act, the ICRC takes into account lots of factors including the situation of the agency at the moment, the presence or absence of other aid agencies (and their ability or inability to function), the number of lives lost or at stake, the possible impacts of the organization’s operations, and the organization’s unique mandate to protect risk taking activities (Slim, 1989, p. 438). Recommendations Risks are the outcomes of the uncertainty and objectives achievement; they can either be negative or positive. As a humanitarian organization, ICRC should thereby treat risk management as an aid to the organization’s decision making system (Toni, 2005, p. 162). It allows for information discussion hence weighing diverse security options against each other, and creates respect for both organizational and personal integrity. The organization opt to weigh the external context, such as threats, explicitly against the internal contexts such as capacity; not merely concentrating on the vulnerabilities (Berkes, 2007, p. 283). The organization should develop and enhance threat analyses systems through deconstructing the threat or risk into particular components, which are capable of informing the potential risk management of the most appropriate actions. The risk management policy closely relates to the global institutional objectives. Risk is thereby regarded as part of an organization’s general management concerns. For ICRC, this means that the risks should never be viewed merely as stemming from potential hostile actions that may occur at the field level; it also emanates from the organization’s general profile and identity. Observation of the policies (such as funding strategies), positioning (such as public communications strategy), as well as other organizational endeavors, is thereby significant (Toni, 2005, p. 153). Moreover, this is a clear demonstration that risk management is no longer a technical concern but an institutional concern that can never be isolated from other strategic thinking and managerial tasks. The concept of field security serves as the frame of reference for risk matters; it applies to every operational situation. In exclusive situations, the ICRC may consider relinquishing the applicability of one of its security pillars. In such situations, the “Directorate of Operations” should come up with a specified set of constraints for operational actions, submitted to the Decision and Approval Directorate, as well as to the President. Alternatively, the ICRC will endeavor to pursue its efforts of restoration of the applicability of the entire reference framework. This will be in the view of reinforcing the recognition of its work and staff by the parties to a given conflict, including individuals who are indirectly involved (Dominique-D, 2008, p. 121). ICRC opt to state the organization’s risk attitudes hence clarify the criterion for the foundation or benchmark upon which the delegation will consider the possible risk assessment procedures, risk management and risk treatment options. For safety purposes, it should include the organization’s complexities and uncertainties as fundamental characteristic of risks to the aid agency, which commonly operates within the hazardous security environments. This will also help enlarge the organization’s risk assessment techniques to be consistent with the familiar risk matrix applied by the aid staff. This strategy will help balance the risks, as well as benefits hence devising measures that are useful in reducing risk to low and manageable levels (Berkes, 2007, p. 287). Beyond the management of critical incidents, ICRC will be able to increase its explicit focus on the operational and organizational adaptability and resilience to regular operations. References Bennett, A. (2005). The Geneva Convention: The hidden origins of the Red Cross. Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing. Berkes, F. (2007). Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: Lessons from resilience thinking. Nat Hazards 41(17), pp. 282-293. David, P. F. (1978). Humanitarian politics: The international committee of the Red Cross. Baltimore: Hopkins University Press. Dominique-D, J. (2008). The imperiled Red Cross and the Palestine Eretz Yisrael conflict: The influence of institutional concerns on a humanitarian operation. Geneva: Graduate Institute of International Studies. François, B. (2003). The international committee of the Red Cross and the protection of war victims. Geneva: ICRC & Macmillan. Jean-Claude, F. (1999). The Red Cross and the holocaust. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Oliver, B. & Kingston, M. (2010). Whose risk is it any way? Linking operational risk thresholds and organizational risk management. Humanitarian Exchange 47(13), pp. 86-97. Patrick, B. (2009). ICRC operational security: Staff safety in armed conflict and internal violence. International Review of the Red Cross, 91(874), pp. 432-481. Philippe, D. (1998). Security in ICRC field operations. International Review of the Red Cross, 323(47), pp. 336–342. Pierre, K. (2004). The ICRC’s approach to contemporary security challenges: A future for independent and neutral humanitarian action. International Review of the Red Cross, 86(855), pp. 501–511. Slim, H. (1989). Protection of the Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems and the repression of misuse. International Review of the Red Cross, 27(2), pp. 430–441. Toni, P. (2005). Asymmetrical warfare from the perspective of humanitarian law and humanitarian action. International Review of the Red Cross, 87 (857), pp. 149–165. Read More