November 4, 2010

Albertien van der Veen is a senior evaluator for DARA with over 20 years of experience in humanitarian aid and development assistance. She has worked for NGOs, UN agencies and donors. Fresh from her Humanitarian Response Index (HRI) mission to Nairobi, she shares her impressions of the crisis in Somalia.

Question: Somalia is facing its worst humanitarian crisis since 1992. Do you consider that donor response has been satisfactory?

Albertien van der Veen: Donor response has been inadequate. In 2009, needs have not been sufficiently covered, and funds for relief programmes are running out. In Somalia, one of the key problems, apart from security, is the politicization of humanitarian aid, notably by the US. Aid channelled by USAID and by the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) has been drastically reduced because the US Treasury, which enforces US anti-terrorism laws, has listed the Islamic rebel group al-Shabaab as a terrorist group. This decision is directly affecting millions of people living in large parts of southern and central Somalia where this group has a presence.

Q: How is this measure affecting humanitarian operations on the field?

A: This situation creates anger and frustration among humanitarian actors. They face a dilemma: NGO’s and UN agencies operating in these regions have no choice but to work with local Al-Shabaad commanders to distribute critically needed humanitarian aid. But by doing so, they risk criminal prosecution in the US due to anti-terrorism laws. This lack of neutrality on the part of the US government damages the fragile image of humanitarian aid in Somalia. It creates suspicion, undermines relief organizations’ neutrality and impartiality and makes it nearly impossible for humanitarian aid agencies to legally operate in al-Shabab-run territory. As a consequence, many NGOs prefer not to receive US funds. The US policy goes against basic humanitarian principles of saving lives, of impartiality and defence of human rights. For the most vulnerable people who are already victims of conflict, displacement and hunger, the conditions set by the US government represent an additional punishment.

Q: In other humanitarian crises such as Afghanistan and Darfur, these kinds of aid restrictions have not been applied. Why in Somalia?

A: The answer to this is unclear. This issue has become central to the humanitarian community working in Somalia, but there is frustration over United States’ lack of transparency. In general, the international community has not condemned US policy publicly. The only exception is a recent statement from Mark Bowden, the UN Humanitarian Coordinator, who condemned what he called the politicization of humanitarian issues and advocated for the strict respect of Humanitarian aid principles. But Bowden has not publicly received support from the donor community. Donors are clearly very divided on this issue. They should say “humanitarian aid first” and defend principles of impartiality, neutrality and a needs-based approach. But in Somalia, many donors’ policy consists of first investigating “who is in control where” and then acting. This is a very slippery slope.

Q: The absence of longer term recovery programs is always an issue in prolonged humanitarian crises. What is the situation in Somalia?

A: In Somalia, most donors don’t invest in long-term development programs and prefer to fund more visible short-term emergency aid. For example, they finance trucks with water tanks but refuse to repair pipes or deal with water and sanitation problems in a more structural and sustainable way. In Somalia, everything is seen as “humanitarian” because there is no government, no taxes, no State budget, no development funds. So if humanitarian actors can’t fix problems in the education, sanitation or health sectors, who will do it? The same applies to prevention. Donors should help NGO’s to build local capacity, encourage the development of contingency plans and focus on drought prevention.

Q: After this HRI field mission in Somalia, what is your greatest concern?

A: My greatest concern is the very dangerous erosion of humanitarian principles in Somalia. They have been eroded by political decisions. It is possibly one of the worst examples of how the politicization of aid is affecting humanitarian work. It also worries me that humanitarian agencies are not able to reach those who most need aid. Access is a key issue. Right now, NGO’s deliver where and when they can but not necessarily where the aid is most needed. Somalia is probably the most complex and dangerous emergency operation in the world, but it seems like the world is not aware of this.