The Comprehensive Approach

Marc van den Homberg, TNOCpt Pieter van Ingen, 1 Civil Military Interaction CommandSeptember 16 th 2012, Stenden Hogeschool, Leeuwarden

Contents

• Introduction

• Learning objectives

• Movie CIMIC (5 min)

• Introduction to Comprehensive approach

• Differences between civil and military

• How to cooperate and coordinate?

• Collaborative decision making

• Comprehensive approach in practice: case Afghanistan

Marc van den Homberg

• Study and work background:

• Ph.D. Physics and MBA

• KPN Research

• TNO, founded ICT4D team in 2006:

• Reserve officer civil-military interaction

Battalion since 2010

• Private:

• Living in Rotterdam, married with two kids

• Hobbies: mountaineering, running

Objectives

• To be able to explain the Comprehensive Approach and make the

link to comprehensive security

• To be able to explain the civil military interaction spectrum

• To know the differences between civil and military organisations and

how this impacts their interdependent dealing with a (post) conflict

setting

• To have an understanding of how the theory works in reality..

(Afghanistan)

The Security environment

Intrastate conflicts

Catastrophic terrorism

Transborder organized crime

Complex emergencies

Complex emergencies

The roots of these conflictsare COMPLEX and require a

multidisciplinary and comprehensive approach to create

a sustainable peace !

Civ Mil Interaction

Integrated Approach

Comprehensive

Crisis Management

DIME

All the same?

NATO Comprehensive approach definition

Synergy amongst all actors and actions of the International Community

through the coordination and de-confliction of its political, development and

security capabilities to face today’s Challenges including Complex

Emergencies

(Result of NATO internal CA Stakeholder Meeting 22 / 23 September 2010)

Civil and military actors

“boys with toys”, rigid, authoritarian, conservative, impatient, arrogant, civilian phobic, excessively security conscious

non-guided organisations, children of the 60s, tree huggers, undisciplined, unpunctual, anarchic, anti-military

Civil actors about the military

Military about civil actors

But “thé NGO” does not exist

Position in Comprehensive approach depends on:

• Type of intervention (manmade versus nature disaster)

• Type of organisation (humanitarian versus development)

• Implementing via local organisations or by themselves

• National context (relationship between ministries and NGOs, e.g.

Germany vs Netherlands) and autonomy

Just like “thé military” does not exist…!

NGOs versus Military differences

1. Decision making process (flat versus hierarchical; autonomous

versus political)

2. Role (neutrality, impartiality versus choosing sides in a conflict)

3. Long term versus short term

4. Vision on the use of violence

5. Cultural knowledge

6. Execution (process oriented versus task oriented)

7. Involvement of local partners (bottom-up versus top-down)

8. Perception of local population

Levels of Interaction

Integration : Integrated planning and action.

Coherence : Common goals and trust lead to comprehensive actions – concerted planning and action.

Cooperation : Shared view and economy of activities encourages common purposes and common goals.

De-confliction : Shared view avoids interference and encourages economy of activities – self-synchronize.

Awareness : Transparency and information sharing enhances shared view of the engagement space.

Coexistence : The state of being together in the same place at the same time.

Note: Principles of NGOs and IOs limit their potential level of interaction

Comprehensive approach matrix

Actors Intra-agency Whole-of-government

Inter-agency Internal-External

United Various sections of the Swedish government

Various Canadian government agencies

Operation Desert Storm, 1991 Gulf War

Elections in DRC 2006

Integrated Various components of UN Peacekeeping mission

UK Stabilisation Unit or Canadian Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force

UN Peacekeeping mission and UN Country Team, e.g. Liberia 2009

Liberia 2009: use of PRS

Cooperate DPKO and OCHA work together on UN Protection of Civilians Guidelines

Civilian and military pillars of USA PRT in Afghanistan, 2009

Afghanistan Bonn-process2003; UN-EU cooperation in Chad, 2008

EULEX and the Kosovo government, 2009

Coordinate DPKO and OCHA in the field

Civilian and military pillars of Norwegian PRT in Afghanistan, 2009

Humanitarian cluster approach to coordinate;Kosovo UNMIK

UN and Sudanese Independent Electoral Commission in April 2010 elections

Coexist Various parts of EU in Chad in 2008

DFID and MOD fail to agree on common evaluation criteria for UK PRT in Afghanistan, 2008

Humanitarian community and MONUC in Eastern DRC, 2009

UNAMID and Government of Darfur, 2008

Compete Various sections of a ministry compete for funding

US State Department, US Department of Defense and CIA in Afghanistan, 2007

Humanitarian agencies and UNMIL disagree on movement of IDPs from Monrovia, 2005

Taliban and ISAF/UNAMA;Government of Chad and MINURCAT, 2010

Coherence and coordination The limits of the comprehensive approach, Cedric de Coning and Karsten Friss, Journal of International Peacekeeping 15 (2011) 243-272

1. Commitment to peace and stability

2. Hard working attitude

3. International experience

4. Life with hardship and danger

5. Personal risk of injury

6. Decision making under pressure

7. Frustration with political decision making

Common ground

How to cooperate/coordinate (1)

Mutual benefit

Military-Civil Interaction Civil-Military Interaction

• Local knowledge

• Experience

• Information and contacts

• Assessment

www.dfid.gov.uk

www.usaid.gov

• Language and customs

• Security

• Information (roads, weather, maps,

mines, incidents…)

• Support within means and

capabilities (medical, comms,

logistics)

• Situation Assessment

How to cooperate/coordinate (2)

Levels of interaction

Integration Projects jointly executed, or by NGOs but financed by the military

Cooperation Direct cooperation around agreed upon activities but separately executed

Awareness Military and NGOs exchange information wrtsafety, reconstruction and development projects

Coexistence Military (e.g. PRT) and NGOs are present in the same area but have no close relationship

How to cooperate/coordinate (3)

How to cooperate/coordinate (4)Some additional observations

• Exchange of information is done between stakeholders, but quite

often behind the scenes and with strict conditions

• Open cooperation between NGOs and military is –because of

security reasons- almost never a good idea

• Ministry of Foreign Affairs forms a natural interface between Defense

and NGOs

• Local NGOs are more pragmatic in their dealing with soldiers than

INGOs

How to cooperate/coordinate (5) Collaborative decision making

Challenges in collaborative decision making

• How can all actors overcome their differences and cooperate in complex

mission environments?

• How do diplomacy, defense and development activities enforce instead of

oppose each other?

• How can the actors be adaptive?

What is Collaborative Decision Making?

• Characteristics

• For civil and military parties in complex mission environments

• Based on military and civilian (planning) processes

• Translation of political aims in specific approaches and activities

• Adaptive ways to stability, development and security, not end state

driven

• Unity of Effort/Unity of Purpose (instead of Unity of Command)

• Track record

• Uruzgan Campaign Plan

• Comprehensive Mission Design Kunduz

Long termobjective

STARTINGPOINT

MISSION

Non endstate driven, but iterative approach

Comprehensive Decision Making

1. GovernanceS

upportive leaders

Unsupportive leaders

IO/G

O/N

GO

activities

National program

mes

Sec. F

orces Presence

Influence of INS

Narcotics (O

C)

Factors to exploit

2. Rule of Law3. Security Apparatus4. Education5. Healthcare6. Agriculture & Rural Development7. Infrastructure & natural resources8. Economic Development9. Social Protection

Local Conflicts

Factors to mitigate

Developm

ent themes

Backbone CDM process: Conceptual framework

Ho

w to

use

it?

Ho

w to

ge

t the

re?

Marc van den Homberg, 21032012Questions?? Ideas?

Jump in!

Feel free to contact me at:

Marc van den Homberg+31 6 51069884marc.vandenhomberg@tno.nl

References

For this presentation the following sources were used:

• Collaborative Decision Making, Ingrid van Bemmel and Aletta

Eikelboom, Jan 19th 2012, presentation for 1 GNC.

• NATO’s Contribution to a Comprehensive Approach, Nils T. Gallagher,

CCOE

• De comprehensive approach vanuit NGO perspectief: Une liaison

dangereuse, Paul van den Berg en Eveline Rooijmans, CA

Conferentie, 23 mei 2012, The Hague

• Civiel-militaire relaties in complexe noodsituaties, Kees Homan, Hfd 8

in Humanitaire ruimte: tussen onpartijdigheid en politiek

• Coherence and coordination The limits of the comprehensive

approach, Cedric de Coning and Karsten Friss, Journal of

International Peacekeeping 15 (2011) 243-272

Pieter van Ingen

Decision making:

95% of our decision are made within a few milliseconds and based on our need for happiness/satisfaction and security, short-term oriented

Therefore:

Comprehensive approach with people we don’t know is very difficult.Trust has to be established first

95%

IO/G

O/N

GO

activ

ities

Na

tion

al p

rog

ram

me

s

Se

c. Fo

rces P

rese

nce

OM

F a

ctivitie

s

Na

rcotics (O

C)

Infl. o

f po

we

rbro

ke

rs

Enablers

2010

2010

2010

201020102010

2050

TF

U e

ffects

2010

Loca

l Co

nflicts

DisablersPolitical

Strategy

Security

Strategy

Economic

Strategy

Social

Strategy

IO

Strategy

Mission Approach URUZGAN: Conceptual Framework

End State

Diplomacy

Defence

Development

GovernorDistrictChiefs

SecurityForce& police

Commanders and foreign affairs officials

Reconstruction and mentoring teams

Battle group, mentoring &Liaison teams

Main PlayersChange ambition

From Civ effectsTo development

DIPLOMACY

DEFENCE

DEVELOPMENT

DIPLOMACY-project

DIPLOMACY-project

DEFENCE-project

Development-project

Development-project

Development-project

Development-project

ISAF ends in 2014 in Afghanistan once transition is done to:• Local authorities• Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF)Note that this implies that not all three D’s from 3D are covered

NATO (USECT)• Understand• Shape• Engage• Consolidate• Transition

Defence

Development

Diplomacy

U S E C T