- Analyse a dilemma and decide on an acceptable compromise.
- Conduct a multi-level negotiation and build common positions.
- Protect the negotiator and the organisation from pressure.
1Dilemmas and acceptable compromises
Negotiators often face choices where every option has a cost: accepting convoy checks, limiting visibility, temporarily reducing an area of operation. A compromise is acceptable if it crosses no red line, respects the principles and is still better for the population than no agreement.
To decide: describe the options, assess the consequences for the population, the organisation, other actors and the future (precedent), then decide collectively, at the right level, and document the decision and its reasons. Also set exit conditions: when the compromise will have to be reviewed or abandoned.
2Negotiating at several levels
Lasting access is rarely negotiated in one place. You negotiate in parallel at local level (checkpoints, area commanders, community leaders), intermediate level (governors, regional commands) and political level (ministries, the political leadership of armed groups, influential states).
The risk is inconsistency: an agreement at the top that the field ignores, or a local concession that contradicts the organisation's position. You therefore need a written access strategy, regular information sharing between levels and a single spokesperson per counterpart.
3Common positions and access coordination
When several organisations work in the same area, a concession made by one quickly becomes a demand on all. Joint Operating Principles or common positions, adopted with OCHA or the access working group, set shared minimum conditions: no payments, no armed escorts except as a last resort, control of lists and distribution by the organisations.
Coordination does not mean negotiating together everywhere: each organisation keeps its mandate and relationships, but all avoid contradictory messages and share their analysis of access incidents.
4Protecting the negotiator and the organisation
The frontline negotiator carries a heavy load: pressure, threats, responsibility for access for thousands of people. The organisation must protect them: a clear, written mandate, no risky meetings without a security plan, rotation of negotiators, debriefing after every difficult meeting, psychological support.
Threats are reported immediately to the security focal point and the mandator; they may justify a change of counterpart, negotiation level or posture. No agreement is worth the life of a staff member.
Exercise: an access strategy
For a hard-to-reach area of your choice, write a two-page access strategy: counterparts at each level, objectives, red lines shared with other organisations, possible compromises and their exit conditions, measures to protect the negotiator, indicators for monitoring access.
Key points
- Acceptable compromise: no red line crossed, principles respected, better than no agreement.
- Decide collectively, document, set exit conditions.
- Negotiate at several levels with a written access strategy and consistent messages.
- Joint operating principles: avoid precedents that expose all organisations.
- Protect the negotiator: written mandate, security, rotation, support.
Further reading: course references
- Centre of Competence on Humanitarian Negotiation (CCHN) (2019). CCHN Field Manual on Frontline Humanitarian Negotiation. frontline-negotiations.org
- OCHA (G. McHugh and M. Bessler) (2006). Humanitarian Negotiations with Armed Groups: A Manual for Practitioners. www.unocha.org
- ICRC (2005). Rule 55: access for humanitarian relief (customary international humanitarian law). ihl-databases.icrc.org/fr/customary-ihl/v1/rule55
- R. Fisher, W. Ury and B. Patton (1981). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. www.pon.harvard.edu
Daily quiz
3 questions to check what you have learned. Answer them all to complete the day.