Guidance for INGOs on the decision-making process for engaging with the MRM (Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism)

May 2015

Overview of the MRM

The Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism (MRM) was established by the UN Security Council to systematically document and report on the six grave violations against children in armed conflict:

  • The killing or maiming of children
  • The recruitment or use of child soldiers
  • Attacks on schools or hospitals
  • Rape or other grave sexual violence against children
  • The abduction of children
  • The denial of humanitarian access to children

Parties to armed conflict who are identified as committing these violations are listed in the UN Secretary General’s Annual Report on Children and Armed Conflict. A UN country task force is then established to engage with armed forces / armed groups and agree and implement an action plan to prevent further violations and resolve existing violations, e.g. through demobilisation of children.

NGOs and the MRM

The issues that the MRM addresses are closely aligned with the vision and mandate of humanitarian organisations working to protect the rights of children. At the global level, INGOs played a key role in the formation of the monitoring and reporting mechanism, and continue to advocate for improvements to the system, leading various advocacy initiatives at country and global levels. Where feasible, NGOs/INGOs should engage with the MRM at the country level.

All humanitarian agencies who would like to determine their organisation’s nature of engagement with the MRM at country level, must consider two main issues:

  1. The ethical obligation to ensure appropriate and effective responses to children who have experienced grave violations of their rights, in addition to monitoring and reporting.

This consideration may affect when organisations engage with the MRM and in what programming circumstances. Before engaging with the MRM, organisations need to ensure:

  • They have access to affected communities.
  • They have established a relationship of trust with affected communities.
  • They have undertaken service mapping and established referral pathways to be able to effectively respond to grave violations of child rights.
  • Any staff who are involved in monitoring and reporting grave violations have been briefed on their responsibilities and the process to follow in order to respond.

Responsibility for this usually lies with the Child Protection Advisor/s in country

  1. Potential risks to staff and programming.

Engagement with the MRM at the country level can carry operational risks for both programme staff and the affected communities, particularly in contexts in which an operational response is dependent on the acceptance of armed forces / armed groups who are identified as perpetrators of grave violations and listed within the MRM. In all decisions taken on engagement with the MRM, the safety and security of staff and affected communities is paramount.

This consideration may affect whether and how we engage with the MRM. Before we engage with the MRM, we need to ensure that:

  • We have undertaken a risk analysis that considers the likely and potential impact of different forms of engagement with the system. This risk analysis should consider:
  • The degree to which humanitarian access and operational viability is reliant upon working relationships with and acceptance of armed forces and armed groups.
  • The level of threat posed to staff and communities by armed forces and armed groups to both programme staff and affected communities.
  • The likelihood or existence of a formal action plan and established framework to address grave violations.
  • The relative stability / volatility of the operational environment and allegiances between armed forces / armed groups.
  • Engagement with the MRM by other relevant child rights / child protection actors.
  • Organisations should establish a way to monitor the operational environment and any changes that could impact on programming.
  • Where necessary, risk mitigation and response measures should be discussed with staff and incorporated in to safety and security management plans as appropriate.
  • Senior management and other relevant parties should be informed of the issues and involved in the risk analysis, and have approved the approach taken to engaging with the MRM.

Responsibility for this usually lies with the Country Director or delegate, in liaison with the Security Focal Point.

Potential ways of engaging with the MRM at the country level:

Organisations can choose to engage with the MRM in a number of different ways, ranging from the informal to formal, and with relative degrees of confidentiality. The following five options should be considered, according to the level of risk involved:

  1. Not being involved at all, not notifying MRM focal points about cases we come across.
  2. Alert MRM focal point to perceived trends / areas where we come across children who’ve been affected by violations, without passing any identifiable information about specific individuals.
  3. Notify the in-country MRM focal point of individual cases we come across in your normal work so that they can follow up, passing on identifiable information about specific individuals.
  4. Train staff to be able to document cases when they come across them, in the course of their normal work (but not to pro-actively identify); cases may either then need to be verified by the MRM focal point/their team or not – according to what is agreed with MRM focal point
  5. Have a funded, dedicated team focused on pro-actively identifying cases, probably trained to verify cases themselves.