1 / 14

No sanctuary in times of conflict:

No sanctuary in times of conflict:. A systematic analysis of security incidents affecting MSF’s medical mission from 2009-2013 in four highly insecure contexts. Maya Sibley AAU analyst for MCUF June 13, 2014. BACKGROUND.

walter
Download Presentation

No sanctuary in times of conflict:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. No sanctuary in times of conflict: • A systematic analysis of security incidents affecting MSF’s medical mission from 2009-2013 in four highly insecure contexts • Maya Sibley • AAU analyst for MCUF • June 13, 2014 www.msf.be

  2. BACKGROUND • MSF works in highlyunstablecontexts, and faces frequentacts of violence againstitsbeneficiaries and medical mission • Typology of violence against MSF ispoorlyunderstood – increasing violence isperceived, but not evidence-based • Launch of three-yearproject:

  3. THREE RESEARCH QUESTIONS • How many and what are the trends in security incidents in Afghanistan, DRC, South Sudan and Kenya? • What are the consequences of security incidents in these four contexts? • What are the opportunities and limitations of SINDY reports with regards to the data needs of the MCUF project? • SINDY reports & semi-structured interviews for Q3 • Data collection

  4. RESULTS & FINDINGS

  5. MCUF INCIDENTS IN SINDY REPORTS

  6. Locations • Reflect security strategy taken • INCIDENT TYPOLOGY • Trend over time • Baseline not established, but no increase observed over study period • MCUF hotspots Most perpetrators are unknownFrom those identified, the most common perpetrator is State Security Forces (25% overall) • Most frequent types of aggression • Afghanistan Armed entry 42% • DRC Robbery 34% • South Sudan Threats 38% • Kenya Robbery/Death threats 38% (each)

  7. VICTIM TYPOLOGY National staff are the most common victims in absolute numbers but international staff are 5.1 times more at risk (p-value <0.0001, CI: 3.9-6.7) • Males are more frequentlyvictims in Afghanistan (59%) , DRC (73%) & S. Sudan (6%) • Women are more frequentyvictims in Kenya ( 67%, but sample size issmall)

  8. INCIDENT TRIGGERS & CONSEQUENCES • The most common triggers and consequences of incidents were mapped (N, %) • Trigger: • Financial constraints60 (30%) • Active conflict & civil unrest 30 (15%) • General consequence: • Financial loss 64 (32%) • Compromisedquality of care 45 (23%) • Interruption of services 37 (19%) • Compromisedneutrality 32 (16%) • Types of consequence per victim: • Psychological 206 (62%) • Physical 65 (20%)

  9. IMPACT HEALTHCARE DELIVERY & USE

  10. SINDY REPORTING •  Half had not reported to SINDY a recent MCUF incident (4/8)  • TOP 4 REASONS FOR NOT REPORTING • MAIN SINDY SHORTCOMINGS FOR MCUF • Descriptive narrative • What should and shouldn’t be reported unclear • SINDY fields are vague • “Managing the security situation was a priority over reporting” • “Incidents occur so frequently that if we did systematically report, we would be constantly reporting!” • “I feel demotivated due to lack of SINDY report feedback and no security analysis from HQ.” • “SINDY is used only for reporting incidents which directly or indirectly have an impact on MSF activities.”

  11. BIAS & LIMITATIONS

  12. BIAS & LIMITATIONS • Data quality / Partial data • Inconsistent reporting • Lack of denominators • Victims • Time sensitive • Highly subjective • Limited capacity & know-how

  13. CONCLUSIONS • First evidence-based mapping of violence directed against MSF and its beneficiaries. • Context-specific and general patterns of violence were identified, allowing development of more appropriate tools for the monitoring of “Medical Care Under Fire”. • Such monitoring is vital to sustain MSF operations in such contexts.

  14. THANK YOU

More Related