DONORS, UN DISCUSS HIGH-LEVEL COMMITTEE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 KHARTOUM 000703 DEPT FOR SE GRATION, S/USSES, AF A/S CARSON, AF/C NSC FOR MGAVIN DEPT PLS PASS USAID FOR AFR/SUDAN ADDIS ABABA ALSO FOR USAU BRUSSELS FOR PBROWN GENEVA FOR NKYLOH UN ROME FOR HSPANOS NEW YORK FOR DMERCADO SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: ASEC PGOV PREL KPKO SOCI AU UNSC SU SUBJECT: DONORS, UN DISCUSS HIGH-LEVEL COMMITTEE REF: A) KHARTOUM 613 -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (SBU) On May 26, donors and UN officials met to discuss the May 7 High-Level Committee (HLC) meeting and UN proposals for a new HLC terms of reference (TOR) and monitoring mechanism. During the meeting, UN Deputy Resident Coordinator and Humanitarian Coordinator for northern Sudan Toby Lanzer noted that the expulsions have provided the international community an opportunity to reassess the effectiveness of aid and foster improved cooperation and coordination with the government. As a result, the UN has created a draft monitoring mechanism, which would consist of joint Government of National Unity (GNU),UN, non-governmental organization (NGO), and donor teams. The teams would travel to Darfur once a month prior to the HLC meeting to review one or two programmatic issues in addition to staff safety, assets, and the operating environment, which would be standing items for each monitoring mission. While noting the positive steps of expanding the HLC membership and agreeing on a joint monitoring mechanism, meeting participants noted that significant issues remain unspecified, including concerns that the government could delay monitoring teams or distort the information collected. Following inquiries by GNU Humanitarian Aid Commission (HAC) Commissioner-General Hassabo about the utility of conducting a field visit prior to the next HLC meeting, the UN has scheduled a tentative date for a visit to Darfur from June 10 to 12. END SUMMARY. -------------- Donor Perspectives on the Expanded HLC -------------- ¶2. (U) On May 26, representatives from UN agencies, NGOs (represented by Irish NGO CONCERN),the European Commission's Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO),the Chinese Embassy, the African Union, the Russian Embassy, the League of Arab States, the UK Department for International Development (DFID),the British Embassy, USAID, and the U.S. Embassy convened a meeting to discuss the May 7 expanded HLC meeting and future initiatives. Among the results of the May 7 meeting, UN Deputy Resident Coordinator and Humanitarian Coordinator for northern Sudan Toby Lanzer noted agreement on the need for monitoring and comfort among the HLC participants on the broader group of participants. In the May 2 ministerial decree, GNU Minister of Humanitarian Affairs Haroun Lual Ruun expanded the permanent members of the HLC to include relevant GNU ministries and donor countries as permanent members for the first time. (Note: The official from the Chinese Embassy reported that the Chinese government had not yet finalized the procedural work to become a permanent member of the HLC. As a result, Chinese representation at the HLC is currently temporary, pending confirmation from Beijing. End Note.) Lanzer expressed appreciation for the high-level of government participation, including U.S. Special Envoy Gration, DFID representative David Fish, and Sudanese Presidential Advisor Dr. Ghazi Salahudin. (Note: During the meeting, Lanzer reported that Dr. Ghazi has assumed management of the Darfur portfolio for the government. End Note.) ¶3. (U) Participants emphasized the importance of coordination between the UN and the government on the agenda, as well as preparation among HLC members, prior to each meeting. (Note: During the May 7 meeting, Minister for Humanitarian Affairs Ruun had appeared confused regarding the agenda. The UN confirmed that they had shared the agenda with the Minister prior to the meeting, but noted that they would ensure better collaboration on future meetings. End Note.) Participants highlighted that future meetings should be held at a discussion-level, which will require prior dialogue and coordination with the government and among committee members on progress and challenges. ¶4. (U) The CONCERN representative noted that there was a change in the government's tone during the May 7 meeting. The representative stated that the government broke from its more frank conversations, particularly the April 30 NGO meeting with Dr. Ghazi, and noted KHARTOUM 00000703 002 OF 003 several "jarring nodes" during the meeting, particularly with regard to the issues of protection and internally displaced person (IDP) returns. (Note: Per Ref A, during the May 7 meeting, GNU HAC Commissioner-General Hassabo stated that the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has no legal role to provide or coordinate protection services, reporting that UNHCR's mandate includes provision of assistance to refugees rather than IDPs. End Note.) Lanzer reported that UNCHR and the International Organization for Migration headquarters are engaged on this issue, and reported that the deputy wali (governor) of South Darfur stated his willingness to discuss the issue with UNHCR during the week of May 18. End Note.) -------------- Draft Terms of Reference -------------- ¶5. (U) On May 25, in preparation for the May 26 meeting, the UN circulated a draft TOR for the HLC, outlining the expanded membership under the May 2 decree. Participants raised the issue of TORs for state-level HLCs, also established under the decree, specifically noting the need to clarify the relationship between HLCs in the three Darfur states and the Khartoum-level committee, as well as the Khartoum Tripartite Joint Technical Committee, which has maintained relations between the HLC and NGOs. The ECHO official further noted that in the ministerial decree, representation in the state-level committees was extended to only government agencies, the UN, and NGOs, excluding donors. To date, Lanzer noted that only South Darfur has reportedly created a state-level HLC. Recently, the deputy wali of South Darfur reported that the state has established an HLC, although it is unclear if the HLC has conducted meetings or who was present. Lastly, participants noted that the TOR should include a reference to the new monitoring mechanism to codify the agreement reached on May 7. -------------- Draft Monitoring Mechanism -------------- ¶6. (U) During the meeting, Lanzer presented a preliminary draft monitoring mechanism for donor review. Lanzer described the mechanism as "strategic monitoring," denoting monitoring that is broad in scope and addresses overall performance issues, including aid efficiency, impact, relevance, appropriateness, sustainability, coverage, coherence and coordination, as well as donor-specific issues. The monitoring mechanism would consist of joint GNU, UN, NGO, and donor teams, which would travel to Darfur once a month prior to the HLC meeting to review one or two programmatic issues in addition to staff safety and assets and the operating environment, which would be standing items for each monitoring mission. By reviewing programmatic issues, Lanzer hopes that the HLC will be able to move away from solely focusing on bureaucratic impediments to bigger picture items related to the essence of relief work in Darfur. Teams would likely travel to only one Darfur state and possibly only the capital for a short period of time. Teams would gather information through various methods, such as conducting interviews or traveling to IDP camps and rate each issue according to color (green, yellow, and red). Teams would likely prepare a joint report or statement on findings, which the team would share with HLC members and would form the basis of the subsequent HLC meeting. ¶7. (U) Lanzer noted that certain topics will challenge different groups, noting that the purpose of joint teams is to encourage discussions. However, Lanzer noted that joint monitoring should not substitute for NGOs', UN agencies', and donor's own monitoring tools, which could feed into preparation for joint monitoring missions. USAID noted potential difficulties comparing the programmatic reports, as they would likely only cover a specific area for a specific timeframe, as well as noted that team members should review sources so that information is not discounted or discredited. The CONCERN representative highlighted the importance of managing expectations of what the monitoring mechanism, as well as the HLC, can achieve. Since 2007, the HLC has only held ten meetings and visited Darfur twice, according to the NGO representative. In addition, the NGO noted that the HLC should KHARTOUM 00000703 003 OF 003 employ existing mechanisms, such as the Joint Procedures Center database and the clusters, for monitoring. ¶8. (U) Lanzer noted that he had given the draft monitoring mechanism to HAC Commissioner-General Hassabo, who agreed to share the document with other government officials to discuss a way forward. According to Lanzer, Hassabo had inquired about the utility of conducting a field visit prior to the next HLC meeting. Currently, a tentative date for the visit is scheduled for June 10 to 12 and the next HLC meeting is planned for June 15. Closing the meeting, Lanzer invited donors to provide comments on the draft monitoring mechanism and TOR. -------------- USAID Discussion with UN Officials -------------- ¶9. (U) Prior to the HLC meeting, on May 24, USAID staff met with Lanzer and UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) staff to discuss the situation in northern Sudan resulting from the early March NGO expulsions. According to Lanzer, the expulsions have provided the international community an opportunity to reassess the effectiveness of aid and push the government to assume more responsibility. Lanzer emphasized that the international community should "change the discourse" on aid, and move from providing only relief to also building the capacity of line ministries and providing some recovery assistance. ¶10. (SBU) With regard to insecurity and lack of access, Lanzer noted that humanitarian agencies require strengthened coordination with the African Union-UN Hybrid Operations in Darfur (UNAMID) and stated that some access problems are due to the UN's bureaucratic inefficiency or lack of effort, not government obstacles. Lanzer noted that UNAMID could provide "humanitarian space" through its presence, which could allow NGOs to travel to otherwise inaccessible rural areas. (Note: In subsequent meetings, NGO staff noted they are sometimes using UNAMID escorts for movement, but stated that they did not see UNAMID as creating any space for humanitarian work. End Note.) Lanzer reported that UN regulations prevent UN agencies from accessing areas approximately one-half of the time, and noted the importance of recognizing instances where lack of access is due to the UN's own restrictions or bureaucratic inefficiency, not the government. ¶11. (U) Lanzer stressed that the clusters and the OCHA's role need to be strengthened in order to improve coordination. Lanzer reported that cluster leads plan to travel to Darfur in the coming weeks to hold discussions with donors and relevant agencies. (Note: On May 28, OCHA staff reported that the cluster team's visit to Sudan was delayed due to non-issuance of visas. The team plans to visit Sudan in the coming days. End Note.) To strengthen clusters, Lanzer noted a need to begin to build staff capacity through increased resources. Lanzer reported that Norway and Sweden have already stated their intention to retain staff on standby to work in Sudan for six months while longer-term recruitment is ongoing. -------------- Comment -------------- ¶12. (SBU) While the expansion of the HLC's membership and agreement on the need for a monitoring mechanism represent positive steps towards strengthening the HLC, it remains to be seen if the ambitious agenda will be feasible. As Lanzer noted, while it is unclear what is possible at this moment, an opportunity exists to build upon the positive space created by the expulsions and subsequent U.S. engagement to forge a better relationship with the Sudanese government. However, significant issues remain unspecified under the draft monitoring mechanism, including concerns that the government could delay teams, prevent them from traveling to certain areas, and/or misrepresent or discount the information collected. Post will continue to engage in the drafting process to ensure that the monitoring mechanism is a valuable tool. WHITEHEAD