DECISION MAKING PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC ADVOCACY ON GRAVE FOR INTERNAL DECISION-MAKING ONLY. NOT FOR DISSEMINATION BEYOND UNICEF OFFICES VIOLATIONS OF CHILD RIGHTS IN COMPLEX AND HIGH THREAT ENVIRONMENTS Background JUNE 2016 When there are grave violations of children s rights, or sensitive issues affecting children arise, UNICEF needs to make timely decisions on how best to advocate in the best interest of the children affected. Making a decision on whether to undertake that advocacy in the public domain requires a judgment process that should take into account the impact of public advocacy on UNICEF s programmes and the children it serves, our organizational mandate, and the expectations of partners and the general public,. The United Nations, through the Human Rights Up Front Action Plan and under the leadership of the Secretary-General, has recognized that situations of grave violations of rights challenge the UN as a whole and has sought to strengthen the UN s action and voice in the context of grave rights violations. UNICEF also has clear responsibilities for reporting on violations of children s rights in conflict environment, including through its work related to the Security Council s Children and Armed Conflict (CAAC) agenda and the associated Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism on Grave Child Rights Violations in Situations of Armed Conflict (MRM). Building on reviews conducted in 2011, UNICEF has continued to assess its public advocacy practices in cases of grave violations of children s rights and sensitive issues, including possible bottlenecks and challenges: During 2013, the Office of Emergency Programmes (EMOPS) and the Division of Communication (DOC) conducted a series of consultations with concerned colleagues in Country and Regional Offices and in Headquarters to explore ways of strengthening our public communication and advocacy in complex humanitarian situations. The outcomes of the consultations were presented to the Global Management Team meeting in New York in September 2013. The issue has also been discussed at several Regional Management Team (RMT) meetings during 2013 and 2014. At the meeting on Humanitarian Action in Complex and High Threat Environments held at the Dead Sea in January 2014 and at the Istanbul SHA consultation in August 2014, participants agreed that advocacy in the event of child rights violations was a key responsibility for UNICEF at all levels of the organization. This note draws on these various consultations to provide guidance and clarify roles for communication and public advocacy on grave violations of children s rights. Public advocacy in upholding child rights in complex and high threat environments External communication and public positioning should be driven by our mandate and the results we want to achieve for children, be linked to programmatic action, and be well-coordinated across all levels of the organization. Mechanisms already exist to support a process for public advocacy in humanitarian contexts, such as the advocacy strategy that is mandatory in Level 3 and Level 2 emergencies. Communicating, publicly and otherwise, in humanitarian situations is part of key accountabilities as spelled out in the Core Commitments to Children in Humanitarian Action (CCCs). Advocating for the rights of children is a core and primary responsibility, as much as the organization is responsible and accountable for delivering programmes for children in emergency situations. 1
When we do speak out, there are a number of core principles that underpin public advocacy in complex and high threat environments: Action should be results-oriented. We should always have clear objectives and results for children in mind when we decide if and how to pursue public advocacy. Timeliness of decision-making on speaking out is a key concern. As a leading voice for children worldwide, there are valid public expectations for UNICEF to advocate for children s needs and rights in a timely manner. Especially in a humanitarian setting, because of its non-political, neutral, child-centred mandate UNICEF can draw attention to violations committed against children, and use its convening power to instigate action and change for children. The timing of when UNICEF s voice should be heard should be based on a number of considerations, which are explored further below. We should speak about both the situation of children and UNICEF s activities. Rights issues are central to UNICEF s mandate and work, so we should be confident to speak out on all child rights issues, even in the absence of an on-going programmatic response. We should be aware always that speaking out or not speaking out can both have reputational implications; by not speaking out, we may be allowing - or be perceived as allowing political or practical considerations to outweigh important humanitarian principles related to our child rights mandate. Equally, when we do speak out, we may trigger responses from others that could damage, impede or halt our programmatic responses, and hurt children. While recognising that circumstances managed through the procedure outlined below will guide any final decision on public advocacy, in principle UNICEF should speak out publicly whenever there are verified instances of grave violations of children s rights or a risk of such violations occurring. Accountabilities, scope, capacities, timing, channels and tools for public advocacy in complex and high threat environments. Accountabilities UNICEF has a mandate to uphold the rights and interests of children, which is partly fulfilled through the use of its public voice for children. Its presence in the field and the range of its partnerships support this role. Accountability for advocating publicly on violation of child rights cuts across the whole organization, and is not the sole responsibility of Country Representatives or communication staff. Headquarters will provide leadership, as well as practical support and oversight of our public advocacy and positioning. When Country Representatives and other staff on the ground speak out in response to violations of children s rights, they will be fully supported by the organization. They will not be held responsible for any misreporting or misrepresentation by others of a public advocacy position. Country Representatives are likewise expected to consult Regional Offices or Headquarters if any public advocacy is expected to have implications for UNICEF as an organization, its programmes or its staff. 2
In certain cases, the decision on if, how and through whom the organization will speak out will be taken at the Executive level. This applies for: Crimes against humanity, genocide, and war crimes against children; Grave violations of children s rights with global implications (e.g. those that have a direct impact beyond one country); Situations where the consequences of public advocacy could put staff on the ground at risk; Violations in countries designated as having special sensitivity 1. Reports of sexual abuse and/or exploitation of children by UN personnel, contractors or partners, or international or regional military forces associated with a UN mandate. In such cases the decision-making procedure on public communication and advocacy is included in the SEA Notification Alert. On these occasions the Country and Regional Office will always consult the respective EMOPS, PD and DOC colleagues prior to any public statement being issued. Country and Regional Offices have a responsibility to make a judgment with regards to other issues not in this list that would require additional consultation. Scope This guidance relates to communication and public advocacy on grave violations of children s rights and sensitive issues in complex and high threat environments; defined as countries where public advocacy on grave violations could potentially have a negative impact on UNICEF s programmes, its working relationship with the host government, the safety of its staff, its relationship with Member States or most importantly on the wellbeing of the children it serves. The scope of advocacy covered by this procedure also includes decision-making on joint advocacy proposed by partners. As a general principle, UNICEF should speak out when there is sufficient evidence of grave violations of children s rights in any context, which can include: Systematic or pattern of violations of children s rights A documented physical attack against children Grave violations against children in armed conflict 2 (Killing and maiming of children; recruitment or use of children by armed forces and armed groups; sexual violence against children; attacks against schools or hospitals; abduction of children; and denial of humanitarian access for children) The organization may consider that advocating publicly is against the best interests of children. This could be the case: When speaking out on a violation creates a risk to children concerned, our staff, or to programmes; When speaking out would undermine the impartiality / neutrality of UNICEF (e.g. our advocacy would risk creating an association with one party to the conflict); When speaking out publicly in one country would have a negative impact on our impartial/neutral mandate in other countries (e.g. denial of access, stopping of donations, pressure to share detailed information on persons involved in violations, etc.); 1 This list is updated periodically by the Office of the Executive Director 2 http://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/effects-of-conflict/six-grave-violations/ 3
When speaking out publicly on a given issue would undermine a course of action to benefit children that was close to delivering results (for example, when private advocacy was close to successfully resolving an issue, or agreeing a better course of action by protagonists). Capacity for public advocacy Effective public advocacy for children requires an organizational recognition of its value in humanitarian settings, and adequate capacity and support for staff responsible and accountable for such advocacy. This includes: Building human resources capacity (communication capacity but also capacity for advocacy, analysis and information gathering); Providing necessary training for senior managers on an ongoing basis (on media and related issues, and on International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law); Providing tools such as checklists, decision-trees, and standard positions on recurrent issues; Identifying focal points in Regional and HQ offices to provide advice and guidance on particular issues, with details of focal points readily available to Country Office teams. Providing support for planning ahead. Timing Without creating unnecessary delay, UNICEF staff should always consider the full implications of speaking out or not. There are circumstances when speaking out publicly is not the most effective course of action. A decision not to speak out should always be backed up by an alternative course of action to achieve advocacy goals. A process of consultation to come to such a decision is outlined below. Channels and tools Speaking out can take various forms depending on the circumstances. Those can include statements, press releases, media briefings, and public engagements by senior officials and staff, as well as through social media. We should also consider whether other voices, such as the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict, could be effective channels to support our public advocacy positions. Public messaging should in all forms be aligned with overall programme and advocacy. Messages should be designed not solely to convey outrage at a violation of children s rights but include tangible messages and include specific actions that need to be taken by different parties towards ending those violations of child rights and towards eliciting the necessary response for the survival and wellbeing of children. Messaging should be engaging and compelling and avoid being too technical, legalistic or demanding in tone. 4
Procedure for deciding on when to engage in public advocacy on grave violations of child rights The recommended time frame from a violation first being verified to a decision being made on speaking out publicly on the violation should not exceed 24 hours. A. Verify grave violations 1. The Country Office will identify the issue and establish evidence to substantiate it. Whatever we speak about, we need to speak from, and with, reliable information and data. Efforts should be made to obtain the facts and triangulate information from various sources in the event that UNICEF cannot verify the information through its own staff. In the case of MRM data, full consultation should take place with the relevant Country Task Force before such data are used. In some cases, it is enough to speak from principle, from experience, and on the basis of issues reported by others. We might also choose to speak out in order to prevent violations from happening when we see the risk of a particular pattern of abuse or threat emerging. B. Assess risks of public advocacy 2. The Country Office, in consultation with the Regional Office, and when necessary EMOPS, DOC and PD, will assess the risks of public advocacy on the identified violation, aided by a checklist provided by UNICEF headquarters (see Annex 3). In the cases of certain sensitive themes or countries (to be defined with OED) EMOPS, PD and DOC will automatically be consulted at this stage. Focal points for this HQ consultation are the Deputy Directors in the respective Divisions. 3. Whenever a Country or Regional Office is considering engaging in public advocacy on grave violations of children s rights, advance information should always be provided to DOC which will alert other key Divisions and the Chief of Staff in OED. This enables the organization to be prepared for any follow-up from media, Member States, National Committees etc. PFP will work with National Committees to assure all messaging is aligned across the UNICEF family. Similarly, when Headquarters, Regional Offices or National Committees are considering speaking out on a violation or issue that could impact individual Country Offices, or on violations in specific countries, Regional Directors and Country Representatives will be advised in advance. C. Recommend course of action 4. If the Country Representative believes that public advocacy is not the best course of action, or believes that public advocacy should be led from elsewhere in the organization, he/she will consult the Regional Director. The Regional Director will make a decision either to speak publicly, or to recommend that any public advocacy: a. be led from elsewhere in the organization, or b. be undertaken from outside through a partner, or advocacy alliance etc., or c. recommend no public advocacy be undertaken at all. Again, in relation to issues and countries considered of special sensitivity, the Regional Director should always liaise with EMOPS, PD and DOC during this step. 5. If at step 4 the Regional Director decides that public advocacy is not the best course of action, or that any public advocacy should be led from elsewhere in the organization or from outside 5
it, he/she will consult the DED Partnerships. On these occasions (and always in the context of issues/countries of special sensitivity), the DED Partnerships will consult at the Director level with PD, EMOPS, DOC and PPD, and with the Deputy Executive Director Programmes and the Chief of Staff (representing the Executive Director), to decide whether public advocacy should be undertaken or not and propose alternate courses of action as appropriate. The Regional Director and Country Representative will be connected to these discussions. The DED Partnerships will then convey the organization s final decision and agreed actions, along with the rationale for that decision, to the Country Representative and the Regional Director. D. Develop and clear public messages 6. When a decision is made to advocate publicly, the Country Office will define target audiences, develop messages and ensure alignment with overall advocacy goals with support from the Regional Office and HQ (EMOPS and DOC) as necessary. 7. The Country Office, with support from the Regional Office, EMOPS, PD and DOC, will develop public advocacy materials (press releases, fact-sheets, position papers, briefs, multimedia/social media materials, etc.). Accountability for the content of these materials rests with the Country Representative, who will clear content with the Regional Director. In the case of issues and countries considered to be of special sensitivity, final clearance will come from the Executive Director. On those occasions, materials will be sent via the Regional Office to DOC, who will obtain clearance from OED after consultation as necessary with PD/EMOPS. E. Disseminate and monitor 8. Once a decision has been made for UNICEF to speak publicly on a violation, the approved message (statement, Tweet, Facebook post etc.) should be issued, as a standard, within the same day. Where appropriate, other actors such as the SRSG for Children and Armed Conflict should be advised of any planned public advocacy. 9. The Country and Regional Offices and DOC will agree on a dissemination plan for approved materials; this may include full distribution through all UNICEF channels or dissemination only through specific channels (for example when the decision is made for the Regional Office to speak out instead of the Country Office, or for public advocacy to be led at the Headquarters level). 10. Monitoring of public advocacy impact, including impact on the children affected, and media coverage results, as well as government and partner reactions, will be undertaken by the Country Office Communication team, with support from Regional Offices and HQ. 6
7
ANNEX 1: Countries for which HQ consultation is automatically required prior to public advocacy being undertaken, as at 1 June 2016. The State of Palestine Israel Syrian Arab Republic The Republic of Iraq Democratic People s Republic of Korea ANNEX 2. Contact points for consultation in Headquarters Programme Division: EMOPS: Division of Communication: TBD Yasmin Haque, Deputy Director Marixie Mercado, Chief of Media ANNEX 3. Quick checklist in support of risk assessment for public advocacy in complex and high threat environments. 1. Has the violation been verified by at least two reliable sources (partners or institutions that UNICEF works with, has knowledge of, or has a strong record of accurate monitoring of rights violations)? If not, is there a risk that any public advocacy could be later undermined if the report is shown to be inaccurate? 2. Are you clear what the impact of the violation is on children, and can you articulate that impact with evidence (either local or from global experience)? Advocacy is enhanced when backed with solid evidence-based arguments in addition to citing organizational or internationally accepted positions. 3. Is there precedent for public advocacy based on previous similar violations? If UNICEF has not spoken out on similar violations in the past especially when perpetrated by other parties there is a risk that we could be accused of bias or inconsistency. 4. Can the perpetrators, or those accountable for preventing such a violation, be identified? Directing your advocacy to an identifiable party or parties can make it more effective, but you should weigh that against the risks of possible retaliation. You may consider the value of a broader message aimed at all those who can prevent future violations. 5. Have you fully considered the consequences of any public advocacy in terms of reprisals, or other negative impacts on our staff, programmes, partners and children? Are there critical programmes including those in the planning stage - that could be curtailed as a result of public statements? Could partners be prevented from working with us? Would our access be denied to communities? Could movement of staff or supplies be restricted? Private advocacy, third party advocacy, or collective public advocacy may be more effective approaches, if these risks are considered real and consequential. Remember that negative reactions to our public advocacy could come from entities outside your own country so consider who regional allies or international supporters of violators may be, and how they may 8
react. If that risk is considered real and consequential, the final decision on any public advocacy will rest with the Executive Director. 6. If you intend to advocate publicly on this violation, have you identified a clear call for action? Do you know what you want parties to do to prevent or respond to such a violation? Striking a balance between condemnation/outrage/principle and presenting a practical course of action for parties to follow and the reasons why such a course of action is necessary can be a smart approach when working in complex political or security environments. 7. Are there partners who need to be informed in advance of your proposed advocacy? Where appropriate, advance notification can encourage partners to add their voice, or allow them to prepare for possible negative reactions. 8. What would be the best channels for public advocacy? Social media can generate stronger public engagement and support than a press release, while targeted media engagement can help direct your message to specific decision-makers or influencers which may be outside the country where the violation has occurred. 9