Garda’s High-Risk Markets group, called GardaWorld, has been working with non-government organizations using low profile, intelligence-led and risk-avoidance methods in conflict areas. “There are a lot of organizations out there that don’t have security, that don’t have a crisis response planned, so if something did happen, they’d be starting right from the bottom,” says Neil MacKinnon, director of crisis response and intelligence with GardaWorld. “We tend to work under the assumption that something is going to happen sometime.”

There are more than 600 Canadian NGOs; GardaWorld is in talks with some of those about their security situation. The argument for private security is that as long as those perpetrating the violence can succeed in forcing NGOs to withdraw from a hot spot, they will prevent order from being restored.

Many NGOs don’t want to use private security, however, because being surrounded by armed guards gives off the wrong impression to the people they’re trying to help.

“The reality is, things have changed dramatically,” says Sunil Ram, director of operations with Executive Security Services International. “We’ve had Canadians kidnapped. We just had [three aid workers] with the International Rescue Committee killed in Afghanistan.”
As a result, NGOs are getting more proactive when it comes to security, such as providing cultural immersion training before deploying aid workers. This includes learning basic words in the local language, how to dress like the locals and how to avoid standing out (by, say, not driving fancy cars). If you’re traveling in a convoy, for example, that alone can make you a target.
There are also legal considerations, since the courts are now holding employers responsible for the well being of their workers, especially in hot spots like Iraq, Afghanistan and Darfur.
“More of these humanitarian groups are getting it, they’re understanding we have to spend a lot more money [on security],” says Ram. “It should be going to food shipments, but the reality is, your food is not going to get from Point A to Point B because Buddy and his gang are going to stop you, maybe kill you, maybe take you hostage, and steal all your food anyway. Look what happened in Darfur.”

While these risks are not new, in today’s world, NGOs are much more deliberate in putting explicit security policies and procedures in place. “Many years ago I worked in Central America,” says Robert Fox, executive director of Oxfam Canada. “I was often in a situation of conflict, but there wasn’t as much guidance and clear procedures. Now we recognize that the situation of our staff is very precarious and we have a responsibility as an organization to think through the various scenarios and ensure that we’re minimizing any risks.”

Aid workers do not travel alone, for example, and they don’t go anywhere without their walkie-talkies. They also check in with their central base at designated times. The security situation can move from one level to another, which means another set of protocols would come into play.

“On any given day we may well identify that in fact we have reached a point where we have to suspend operations ”“ and we have done that,” he says. “In parts of Darfur there are particular camps where we have stopped operations because we cannot provide by any means reliable support to staff in those situations.”
But he says there’s an increasing concern at the blurring roles between military, private security and humanitarian organizations, because it can put aid workers at risk. “As Oxfam we are independent and impartial,” says Fox. “Our job in Afghanistan is not to win hearts and minds. We are not there as an instrument of Canadian foreign policy.” When military forces start to play a role such as we’ve seen in Afghanistan, where they work with provincial reconstruction teams, that makes it more difficult to distinguish them from humanitarian workers ”“ even though Oxfam provides support to people in need regardless of race, religion or political interests.

Private security also blurs that distinction, he says, because some governments are contracting out their security and development work to private companies. “Looking into the future, there may be more of it, but it doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.”